Justice Sandra Day O'Conner submitted her resignation to President Bush this morning and thus ended a twenty-four year stay on the nation's highest court. Let me first congratulate her on her accomplishments during that period and thank her for her service to her country. I and the rest of the nation wish her the very best in her retirement and continued good health for many years to come.
Now to the business at hand, which is finding and confirming her replacement. As my opinions on recent court decisions have shown, I am growing increasingly concerned with the court's troubling disregard for the words and meaning of the constitution. In recent cases they have ruled that the Commerce Clause allows congress to regulate activities that are neither commercial nor interstate, that the Takings Clause allows local governments to seize private property not only for public use, but for public "purpose" as well, and that one ten commandment display in Texas doesn't violate the Establishment Clause while a similar one in Kentucky does. On what constitutional grounds these rulings are based on is unclear to me and many others, conservative and liberal alike.
Frankly it's time to reintroduce the constitution to the Supreme Court, which means sending justices to the court who, when making a ruling, will be guided by the word and intent of the constitution, and not exaggerate those words to mean something completely irreconcilable to it. There are many fine candidates out there who will meet this standard, and the president should have no problem finding a qualified nominee. Hopefully that nominee will receive a fair hearing and up or down vote on the Senate floor, as well as a civil and honest debate. As the president said this morning, that's what the nominee and this country deserve.
UPDATE (9:46 P.M. 7/3/05): The case for a constitutionalist nominee.
No comments:
Post a Comment