When the Judges will be Judged


Obama has already given Catholics a multitude of reasons of why we clearly can not vote for him.  On top of that, one of the biggest reasons has always been his power to appoint pro-abortion Supreme Court Justices.

Justice Souter is retiring.  Obama now has his first opportunity to further corrupt an already unjust court.

Souter’s retirement was at least a bit unexpected because he is one of the younger justices.  This could be very bad for the Pro-life movement – not to mention the health of our constitutional republic.  But there may be some positive points we can take away though, too.

Obama already has a good chance of getting to replace two other justices on the Supreme court during his term.  Those justices are Justice Ginsburg (who is 76 and has had some health problems) and Justice Stevens (who is 89 years old).  And now, of course, Justice Souter makes it 3 fairly likely appointments by Obama to our nation’s most important court (where there are 9 total judges).  Souter’s replacement is the first to come up.

The reason these appointments are especially crucial is because they last for an entire lifetime and they interpret the laws of the land.  So judges that Obama appoints will likely shape this country for 20-40 more years each.  Scary.

But don’t worry, Obama has no “litmus test” for his appointments…as long as they are radically pro-abortion.  They will also be “legal minded” and respect the “appropriate limits of the judicial role”…as long as they are also activist types of judges who want to reinterpret the constitution how they see it rather than the way it was self-evidently intended.

That’s some of the bad news.  And it’s pretty darn bad.

Also, now that Arlen Spector has shamefully joined the Democrats to save his own political skin in a primary race back in his state, the Democrats will likely have a 60 member, fillibuster proof majority in the Senate.  Very scary…no matter which party you support.  Of course this is pending the decision of the Al Franken race in Minnesota which still baffles my mind at the turn of events and corruption in that race.

That means that the Democrats will just about have free run of the place.  And any look at history will show that is a very bad idea.

The good news is that history also shows that Americans are quick to correct the situation when one party starts to think they have the run of the place.  The Democrats are already doing it – as they already have control of all 3 branches of the government.  And their over zealousness will surely hurt them come the next election.

A radically liberal appointment by Obama to the Supreme Court will only further hurt his cause.  So it will be interesting to see how he proceeds.

My prediction is that (*if he’s able to get a vote on them) he will do what he’s been doing so far with all of his appointments.  He will pick somebody that is radically liberal because he can’t help himself, but he’ll attempt to pass them off as moderate and bi-partisan.  And with a few nice, ambiguous speeches and the benevolence of the media he may seem successful at it.  But I also believe Americans are a lot smarter than he thinks.  And they are already catching on as it is.

So a bit of good news is that having this  Supreme Court appointment before the 2010 congessional election could serve as an important reminder to Americans of what kind of power they’ve given to the Democratic party in our present government.  Because of this, Obama may play it cool on this appointment and actually select a more moderate Judge (afterall, Souter is kind of a bonus appointment anyway and a more moderately liberal judge as it is).  And I would certainly welcome that.

More good news is that Spector defecting from the Republicans may actually *make it harder for Democrats to even get a vote on any radical judicial appointment.  Before an appointment can even go to the floor, they must have consent from at least one member from the minority party in the judicial committee.  Spector would have likely been that person had he still been a Republican.  Now they’ll have to find somebody else to cross over.

And finally, a last bit of (at least) “not bad” news is that all three of the possible retiring Supreme Court Justices are already pro-abortion judges.  So rather than shifting the court further in a pro-abortion direction (thank goodness), any Obama appointments will only work to maintain a pro-abortion court for another generation (very sad still).

I hope for two main things from this appointment.  First, that it reminds Catholics of how important it is to support a pro-life President.  Presidents have extraordinary and lasting power in judicial appointments.  The wrong president can be voted out by the people in 4 years.  The wrong judge that he appoints, however, is most likely there for life.

And second, that whoever the justice ends up being they are open minded enough to eventually see the horror and injustice of abortion.  There is no doubt they will come in as a pro-abortion judge.  I just pray that the sobering moral responsibility that comes with such a powerful position opens them up to see the Truth as soon as possible.  One day these judges will be judged according to what they’ve been given.  And to whom much is given, much will be required.  They have been given much.  Let us pray that they use it wisely.

2 comments Add comment

rebecca May 4, 2009 at 10:18 am

the saddest thing is that the constitution provides for getting rid of bad justices. It is just that nobody knows or acts on that provision!

Bill May 4, 2009 at 10:22 am

A couple of thoughts.

First, about Justice Souter. Souter is a liberal, and will be replaced by a liberal. No net change, AND Supreme Court Justices have a track record of not making decisions in the way that the Presidents who appointed them had hoped. It’s never too late for conversion — add this to your prayers for the new Justice.

Second, this morning on Good Morning America, James Carville (the Democratic strategist) was touting his new book, which is all about how the Democrats are starting 40 years of domination. Carville’s basis for this claim is that political parties tend to dominate in alternating 40-year cycles. The Republicans were (more or less) dominant from 1968 to 2008. Now, Carville says, it’s the Democratic Party’s turn.

OK, so what? Well, maybe this is an opportunity to appeal to the Democrats’ survival instinct. If they won’t listen to the Natural Law regarding the Right to Life, maybe they will listen to the possibility of extinction. If they keep pushing abortion and birth control, Democrats will decline in numbers because not enough children are born to them (children tend to inherit the political views of their parents). Republicans, on the other hand, may multiply in numbers. Something to think about, Mr. Democratic Strategist … maybe it’s time to take that pro-abortion plank out of the Party platform.

Want to help spread this idea? Write a letter to a Democratic Congress critter today! Help them understand that it’s about survival.

Previous post:

Next post: