ConfirmThem

By AndrewHyman Posted in Senate Rules — Comments () / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Duncan Currie writes in the Weekly Standard that a showdown over the U.S. judiciary was a long time coming. Here's an excerpt:

To a casual European observer, the row over President Bush's judicial picks may seem a bit dippy. Democrats fight tooth-and-nail to block mid-level nominees. Republicans talk of a "nuclear option" to break the impasse. Democrats warn they'll bring Senate business to a halt. Republicans dare them to try. Our transatlantic friend might scratch his head and wonder, How could an ostensibly minor, non-legislative issue--who sits on a few appellate courts--implode the entire U.S. Senate?
....

The underlying threat to American self-government is not merely "right-wing" or "left-wing" judges--but the imperial judiciary itself. Yes, most judicial activism these days occurs on the social left. Conservatives are wholly justified in their high dudgeon. But when they base their arguments on a narrow critique of "liberal" judges, rather than a critique of usurping judges generally, conservatives unintentionally concede a vital point: namely, that American courts should be reaching a sociopolitical consensus for the American people. In fact, the Founders intended no such role for the courts. Divining and defining the popular will on, say, abortion, same-sex marriage, and the death penalty is properly the duty of the U.S. Congress and state legislators.

It's so important to have judges who simply follow the law as written, whether it's a liberal law or a conservative law. If legislators take a reasonable view of a constitutional provision, then courts should defer. The Supreme Court said it best:

It is but a decent respect due to the wisdom, the integrity and the patriotism of the legislative body, by which any law is passed, to presume in favor of its validity until its violation of the Constitution is proved beyond all reasonable doubt.

Ogden v. Saunders, 25 US 213 (1827).