Wendy Long on Romney and Judges
Jennifer Rubin appears to be busy lately. In addition to the Vin Weber interview, she has a great interview Wendy Long of the Judicial Confirmation Network over at the American Spectator. My passion for judicial issues temps me to post the whole thing, but in the name of restraint, here are the highlights:
How did she come to select Romney? She candidly acknowledges that she always liked Fred Thompson, in part because his support of causes like Scooter Libby “warmed her heart,” but ultimately concluded that Thompson could “not hold a candle to the Governor on intellect or leadership.” She contends that Romney is “the constitutionalist” in the race, meaning he best understands and supports concepts of federalism and the commitment to originalism in interpreting the Constitution.
In this sense, he’ll be even better than President Bush on the subject as our president has never been a huge supporter of federalism.
On the subject of the kinds of Supreme Court justices we can expect from President Romney:
Long argues that Romney “is the only one I’m absolutely sure” will give us more nominees like Justices Alito and Roberts. With these types of judges she believes we will continue the “incremental process” to return power to the people and allow policy decisions to be made democratically. She says this should not be a bad thing for liberals, who will be free to “fight it out” in legislative bodies to achieve their objectives. She notes that if in that context their ideas “don’t go over” then that is the appropriate outcome in a democracy.
And she reminds us of what the stakes are in the next election:
What would a Hillary Clinton Supreme Court look like? Long says that “a Hillary presidency would cement and even increase the very liberal and, in my view, incorrect excesses of the Warren Court.” Long explains that with the Warren Court judges began indulging in judicial activism — the practice whereby “a court substitutes its will for a legislative body where there is no constitutional reason to do so.” Long says that Clinton would “appoint people she is confident would arrive at policy outcomes” consistent with a “far reaching left agenda.” Long notes that once the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional matter “you can’t undo it by legislation” and slowly we “destroy self-government and put ourselves in the hands of judges of her [Clinton's] choosing.” She notes that the verb “cemented’ is used intentionally since constitutional doctrine often can’t be “repaired for a century or more.”
Emphasis mine.
She makes such an important note there. When liberal judges are allowed onto the bench, they take away our right to govern ourselves on so many important issues. Liberals are okay with that as long as they get their way (in fact, as Sen. Schumer makes clear, they believe ruling the judiciary to be their natural right).
In related news, CJ Roberts was taken to the hospital today after suffering a seizure. Let us wish for his good health.
~~~Thomas
July 30th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
Hey Thomas - I had it first
Well at least, with both of us posting it, people will probably get the idea that it’s a very good thing.
July 30th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
Oops.
Stupid work keeping me from finishing the post in a timely manner.