Sunday, January 15, 2006

Confirm Alito

Today, the front page of the NY Times concedes victory to Bush on the Alito nomination, taking a predictably 100% glum democrat look around the scene.

The Washington Post goes much further, actually supporting the Alito nomination despite clearly noting that it does not really care for Alito, nor does it support conservatives.

Based on these two signs, I think Alito is in. And thats a good thing.

Is this bad for Democrats, or bad for pro choice Americans? Only in the narrowest ends-justify-the-means sense. Roe v. Wade - which by the way, is what 90% of this supreme court hubub is constantly about - is an abomination. I don't say that because I'm pro-life - I'm not. Its just that you can't simply invent new laws from the constitution. You really can't. The D's argue that we risk losing abortion rights, and a slew of environmental laws are all based on more modern interpretations of the constitution as a "living, breathing document". Hogwash. All that means is that we have created laws with a small, unelected group of judges rather than with an elected legilature.

And that, folks, is really bad. Democracy means that elected folks write laws, not courts. It isn't enough to say that most Americans are pro choice - if that is true, then the legislature should act accordingly.

Using the judiciary to shape public policy is a horrible idea. The Democrats should be very appreciative that Bush has not put judicial activists on the court. But then again, judicial activism is rather antithetical to what most principled conservatives and libertarians believe, so I guess it was a low risk deal for the Dems anyway.

Democrats, at worst, you may lose some laws that were created by courts. If you want them back so bad, and if they represent public opinion so clearly, then be a good democrat and use our democracy to create the proper outcome.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home