The most important campaign issue no one talks about

I have friends who believe it’s all over, that America has fallen too far into the cesspool of moral decay, that Divine judgment must ensue and that our government is no longer free and that it is too late to do any thing about it. Perhaps some day it would make a fascinating article to explain why I disagree, not that we have wondered from the straight and narrow, but that it’s too late to turn around.  Still even a fool can see that our government has grown far beyond its intended constitutional bounds. Even though we have the most remarkable republic in human history it is important to note that the worst most egregious errors in our history have tended to spring from Judicial Fiat rather than democratic process. In recent years this has been aggravated by the effectiveness of the liberals to block a number of conservative appointees. Most famous was the appointment of Robert Bork by the great Ronald Reagan. Who can forget the mean spirited, hate filled and factually challenged rant by the late Ted Kennedy, “   Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is—and is often the only—protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy... President Reagan is still our president. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate, reach into the muck of Watergate and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice.

The “Liberal Lion” may have been a party hack with no regard for the truth, but he was not dumb. He understood that liberalism cannot win elections it cannot long be maintained through standard legislative process. Its mandates must be imposed by an activist court and its unconstitutional precepts must be upheld by sympathetic adjudicator. Meanwhile Republicans tend to “want to honor the traditions of the Senate” and support even the most radical nominees as a recognition of the will of the people through the election process. In principle I agree with the GOP but in application if only one side blocks nominees than their slant will be dominate in the court for years to come.

When the Republican senate finally grew the nerve to do something about this and proposed a “nuclear option” ending the ability of the left to block President Bush’s nominations to the appeals court, in rode the maverick John McCain to the lefts rescue agreeing with his “gang of 14” to stop the nuclear option in exchange for votes on less than half of the nominations in question. This trend cannot continue, either the libs must be forced to play by the same rules or we have to play by theirs.

This is a critical time, in all the levels of the courts but especially in the Supreme Court where currentky there are 4 rock solid constructionist judges (Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito)  dyed iin the wool liberals (Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagen, Sotomayor) and one straw blown in the wind in Anthony Kennedy who was a poor substitute for Robert Bork. Further all federal judgeships have an impact on the government of our country and the rights of its citizens. If the trend continues Gay marriage and abortion will continue to be rights while praying at a graduation or hanging the 10 commandments will be criminalized, and government will continue to grow unchecked. However much we like a candidates policies, poor judicial appointments will negate everything else.

Mitt Romney: as with all things the actions of Gov. Romney do not always match the words of candidate Romney. While talking a great game about the dangers of activist judges, 27 of the 36 Massachusetts appointees by Romney were either Democrats or independents including two activist homosexuals. Of course state issues and Federal are not identical and on Gov. Romney’s defense his main concern was the prosecution of crime and that not being soft on the same were his key criteria. Further political party certainly should not be a consideration, it is however one more reason to be very very cautious before throwing support behind Mitt.

Rick Perry: Perry also has a record, which over all is reasonably good, but though some controversy exists over his selection of self described moderate Xavier Rodriguez over conservative Stephen Wayne Smith, who eventually prevailed in the ensuing election. My concern over this is, as when George Bush made the questionable selection of Harriet Meyers as the best woman available rather than the best justice available, was Perry pandering to Latino voters or was Rodriguez really a best choice. Overall though Perry’s record is better than Romney’s.

The rest of the candidates have no record, so we have to rely on stated positions. Here is a list of quotes compiled by:    nla.org/Blogs/blogs/public/archive/2011/06/29/unlike-obama-republican-candidates-would-appoint-impartial-judges.aspx

Michelle Bachmann: “I do not believe the judges should be legislating from the bench. As President of the United States, I would not appoint judges who are activists.” (June 27, 2011).

Herman Cain: “A justice must issue rulings based on the Constitution, not on any political leanings or desires to legislate from the bench.” (February 22, 2011).

Newt Gingrich: “I believe that the justices who believe that their personal view outweighs the voters of their state, the governor and the legislature of their state are fundamentally acting outside the American system.  I think the American system was one of a balance of power.  I think this whole modern – it starts with the Warren Court in 1958, 1959, this whole modern notion of judicial supremacy is false, and I think that that’s going to be one of the major issues in 2012 and beyond is whether you want judges dictating the nature of American or you want judges who accept the law and who have respect for the legislative and executive branches.” (May 25, 2011).

Gary Johnson: “Judges should be appointed who will interpret the Constitution according to its original meaning. Any court decision that does not follow this original meaning of the Constitution should be revisited.” (Unknown Date)

).

Ron Paul: “The political left increasingly uses the federal judiciary to do in court what it cannot do at the ballot box: advance an activist, secular, multicultural political agenda of which most Americans disapprove. As a society, we should reconsider the wisdom of lifetime tenure for federal judges, and pay closer attention to the judicial nomination procedure. It's time for the executive and legislative branches to show some backbone, appoint judges who follow the Constitution, and remove those who do not.” (October 5, 2004).

Rick Santorum: “[E]xtreme liberal judges [are] destroying traditional morality, creating a new moral code and prohibiting any dissent…The Supreme Court has become the supreme branch of the government, imposing its unrestrained will on all of the people…The only way to restore this republic our founders envisioned is to elevate honorable jurists like Samuel Alito who want to replace the hubris of this court with humility and respect for the common sense of the American people.” (July 9, 2006).

Until nest time, keep on the firing line