![]()
|
|
Jewish World Review July 12, 2005 / 5 Taamuz, 5765 Don't Estrada Bush's Supreme Court nominee By Kathryn Lopez
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |
"Battle lines form" one headline read. "We are going to war" one
senator said.
No, we're not launching attacks against terror camps in Syria or
Iran (at least not yet). Those quotes have nothing to do with
retaliating against the 7/7 London attackers. They're about a
Beltway battle over the Supreme Court.
And all signs point to a long, hot summer. During which another
presidential Supreme Court nominee could be made a verb. Or at least
some Senate Democrats and a coalition of left-wing groups seem to
want to make it so.
"To Bork" entered our vocabularies 18 years ago this fall. In 1987,
Ronald Reagan's nominee for the Supreme Court to replace retiring
Chief Justice Warren Burger was Robert H. Bork, a U.S. Appeals
Court. Ted Kennedy then and now a flamethrower Democratic senator
from Massachusetts was among those who decried Bork on the Senate
floor as the country looked on. Kennedy warned: "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 would be censored at the whim of government, and the doors
of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of
citizens for whom the judiciary is often the only protector of the
individual rights that are the heart of our democracy."
That kind of ridiculous, ghoulish rhetoric ultimately worked.
Democrats and Republican helpers prevailed and Bork was denied
confirmation.
Like Bork, former Manhattan prosecutor Miguel Estrada's name should
be a verb by now. He unfortunately earned it the hard, ugly way
by being a punching bag for Democratic senators and left-wing
interest groups. President Bush picked him for a seat in May 2001 on
the D.C. Federal Court of Appeals and the left subsequently set out
to destroy him (and I do mean "destroy").
Estrada, who as a teenager moved from his native Honduras to the
United States, was dubbed "Hispanic in name only." He was literally
not Hispanic enough for liberals who believe that an ethnic
background ties one to an ideology. They judged that a Judge
Estrada's rulings wouldn't reflect their political will. And so they
had to destroy his nomination, as Democratic memos and talking
points made shockingly clear.
Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer of New York said of Estrada: "I'm
scared of what will happen if he is confirmed." As Mark Levin puts
it in his book "Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying
America," (Regnery Publishing, 2005): "Estrada's main offense in the
eyes of his opponents was that he would not be an activist judge. He
believed in following the Constitution." That means no writing in
non-existent Constitutional rights from the bench like that of
privacy, which a psychedelic 70s' court managed to do.
As if the Bork and Estrada brouhahas didn't spotlight the shameful
history for the Senate enough: Charles Pickering was nominated by
this president for the federal appeals court. The left demonized his
role as a U.S. District Court judge in a complicated Mississippi
cross-burning case. Folks like Schumer (just call him Senator Attack
Dog) tried to make it a black-and-white case against Pickering, by
pitting him as a white-man vs. blacks kind of hater. Never mind that
Charles Evers, brother of civil-rights activist Medgar Evers, said
of his Mississippi brother: "The NAACP and the Klan are the only two
organizations that are against (Pickering) down here."
In Washington today, all court watchers fully expect the president's
nominee to get similar treatment though senators' constituents
should give them hell if they try. If she is a woman and she ever
ruled in favor of, say parental notification for abortion, as
recently obstructed lower-court nominee Priscilla Owen did as a
Texas Supreme Court justice, she will be considered a misogynist
not woman enough.
Assuming it's a male nominee, if there's any a hint he's not open to
being a left-wing activist, he will be a danger to women's rights
and health, as liberal "women's groups" keep warning in "emergency"
e-mails.
Her views are extremist, unlike so many of President Bush's various
federal court nominees who've been stuck with the same e-word over
the past four-plus years. A former American Civil Liberties Union
attorney, Ginsburg has advocated replacing Mother's and Father's
Days with "Parents' Day" to put an end to traditional gender-role
rigidity. She also favored lowering the age of consent for statutory
rape to 12 and opposed the Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts groups because
they, again, "perpetuate stereotyped sex roles."
Senators, please don't Estrada the president's nominee. Even though
good men and women are willing to go before the Senate firing squad
(G-d bless 'em), on national television, and put up with what
Clarence Thomas called a "high-tech lynching" in his case, senators
could avoid trying to destroy one of our best and brightest. If
you're up for being especially fair: Give the president his guy,
assuming he's qualified. Dems, had their chance, now Bush has his.
That call was made last November.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
Comment by clicking here.
© 2005, Newspaper Enterprise Assn. |
Mitch Albom | |||||||||||||||||