Let me grab your attention by asserting that there’s no point in questioning any politician, especially federal court nominees, concerning their opinions, principles or values. Once a federal judge is seated, they no longer need to conform to a political ideology in order to maintain their position. They are free of the need to posture, pretend and lie about their true beliefs and feelings. Until seated, like anyone, they will not reveal them. Ordinary politicians, on the other hand, are never free to be honest.
  
In general, not only politicians but all people, no matter how modest their ambitions, must conform to the ideology of a group or party in order to survive– much more so if they’re to have the credibility and support needed to succeed at anything. Success requires that you not only attach yourself to some large party, incorporation or group but that you strongly espouse the party’s current dominant themes and positions. Conformity is the political reality and is exclusive of individuality. Until confirmed and seated for life on a bench, federal court nominees are no exception. They must be politicians like the rest of US.
  
I believe that many, if not most of US, certainly myself, if open, frank and honest, could admit differences with our chosen party or group. We don’t risk the support of our peers, or firing by our bosses, by doing so. All politicians, and we’re all either politicians or fools, are painfully aware of this reality. We may be hiding differences with our group which we weren’t aware of until long after we’d chosen our party. Once chosen, switching course will usually damage our careers. Few have the courage to do so and they are usually ridiculed as true believing fools. But a federal judge, once confirmed, is free from intellectual bondage. Free to be independent. Free to be an individual. A judge must be a politician only until appointed to the highest federal court to which s/he aspires. Thank God it is so!
  
Requiring a judge to have beliefs that conform to a factions opinion, especially with respect to the constitution, is presumptuous. The Supreme Court of the United States is the ultimate authority on the meaning of the U.S. Constitution. To demand that a Justice conform to your party’s opinion is like demanding God read the Ten Commandments under your guidance. Thank God that the framers of our Constitution saw fit to free the Justices from the corrupting influence of political and religious loyalty. Perhaps more importantly, in most cases it’s a waste of time to expect party line loyalty from a federal jurist. No judge worth having would allow the posturing and lies required to survive in politics to compromise their independence once on the Court.
  
It is the uncontested and clear intent of the founding fathers that the federal judiciary be independent of the legislative and executive branches of our government. If it’s true that Harriet Miers (or any other federal judicial nominee) as Bush and Hatch say, conforms to the "strict constructionist" craze or any other ideological theory that would limit the independence of the judiciary, then she’s not the right stuff for the Supreme Court.
contact me:
Greg Kaiser
email to
agkaiser1@gmail,com
I'll feed myself and provide other necessary resources so that I may continue to write.
A G Kaiser
return to Delusanews index