The Divide over Judges

Nowhere is the Red State Blue State Divide more evident in American politics than in the subject of selecting judges. Senator John Cornyn (R) Texas writing for the Washington Times makes this very clear. (click on title directly above.)

But one doesn’t need Senator Cornyn’s assessments if you were at all witness to the Roberts and Alito Supreme Court Nomination hearings. I saw two most qualified men with impeccable judicial temperament being cajoled and pressed by Democrat leftists who were attempting to disqualify each of them because they were nominated by President Bush and because they are conservative or they might be conservative in their judicial rulings.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. –Article VI, U.S. Constitution

Litmus test, the constitution prohibits any form of religious test in the selecting of judges, but the reality is Leftist on the Senate Judiciary Hearing Committee attempted to use religious standards as a prohibitive in order to hinder the confirmation of both Roberts and Alito.

According to Senator Cornyn the left doesn't want questions answered, it wants promises made. It wants judicial nominees to pledge fealty to the left's extreme ideological agenda.

If you remember the battle cry of Leftist in the 2004 Presidential elections is was that the next President would appoint at least one judge if not two to the Supreme Court. So Democrats rallied to support John Kerry in spite of his questionable candidacy. In fact a larger number of Democrats voted in the 2004 election than ever before in history.

America is divided on the role of the Supreme Court justice. Conservatives believe that a judge should be a strict constructionist whereas Liberals believe that a judge should use personal ideology to adjudicate cases.

That is why in the Senate Judicial hearings the Left’s primary concern was to prevent Judges nominated by President Bush from using their religious views to determine outcomes in Supreme Court rulings. After all Liberals expect their judges to use personal ideology so errantly they assumed that Conservatives would use personal ideology to decide cases.

However, the left is a little bit confused on this point because if a judge is a strict constructionist as the President was said to have advanced for nomination that would mean that the judge as a strict constructionists wants to first consider what it is that the Founders wanted and then make their decision based on if it makes sense in that light to change or stray from what those Founders desired. A Conservative strict constructionist would not just use personal ideology as a Liberal judge would do.