President Bush surprised everyone, including wife Laura, with his
nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court of the United States. It
seems the First Lady has been taking law classes during her spare time,
making her qualified to advise the President on the importance of gender
in judicial selections. "I would really like him to name another woman,"
she explained on NBC's Today show.
Everyone from Sandra Day O'Connor to the nattering nags at NOW had
decided that the now-vacated seat was destined to be filled by a woman,
regardless of her training, experience, or judicial temperament.
Why? Because "something is lost when there is only one female in the
room," according to a weepy-eyed
article in the Chicago Tribune. And
what is that unique "something"? The article answers, it's that "special
bond that mothers have with children."
That tender maternal bond no doubt explains why Sandra O'Connor and Ruth
Bader Ginsberg have consistently voted to uphold abortion laws
throughout their Supreme Court careers.
Bush's nomination of a white male represents more than a slap in the
face to the affirmative action mentality. Mr. Roberts, you see, does not
believe that true meaning of the Constitution lurks somewhere in the
decrees of the International Criminal Court. Rather, his approach to
interpreting the U.S. Constitution hews to the notion of "What you see
is what you get" -- WYSIWYG in computer parlance.
When the U.S. Constitution was drafted, Americans were still smarting
from the memory of King George's boot-heel tyranny. The bitter
after-taste of that experience compelled our forefathers to strictly
limit the powers of the nascent federal government. And they did it
right up front, enumerating its responsibilities in Article I, Section 8
of the Constitution.
But the notion of enumerated powers of the federal government has become
eroded. And now we're paying the price. Look at the draconian policies
of government bureaucracies such as the Office of Child Support
Enforcement or Child Protective Services, and you realize that's exactly
what the delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention were seeking to
avoid.
Roberts' constructionist views of the Constitution represent a direct
threat to the Leftist creed, which seeks to highjack the federal
government in order to impose its classless, genderless vision on the
rest of us. To a Leftist, individual differences are an anathema that
need to be rooted out by government fiat.
But it's the feminist Left that's really having a hissy-fit. According
to the National Organization of Women, Roberts has long promoted an
"anti-woman, anti-civil rights, and anti-worker agenda."
This guy must really be a monster. Yes, just see for yourself.
In a 1999 radio interview Roberts voiced his opposition to the Violence
Against Women Act: "We have gotten to the point these days where we
think the only way we can show we're serious about a problem is if we
pass a federal law, whether it is the Violence Against Women Act or
anything else." Obviously the Supreme Court nominee doesn't appreciate
that Big Sister government should be the cure-all for our social ills.
In NCAA v. Smith, Roberts argued against Title IX, the law that shuts
down men's athletic teams because not enough women have been signing up
for synchronized swimming. What's wrong with imposing Soviet-style
gender quotas on college sports programs, so long as they bring about
gender equality?
But it's Roberts' discomfiture with abortion that has most provoked the
Sisterhood. As Deputy Solicitor General, Roberts once argued in a brief
to the Supreme Court that "we continue to believe that Roe was wrongly
decided and should be overruled."
Then there's the matter of Roberts' wife Jane, who served for four years
as the executive vice president of Feminists for Life, a pro-life group.
But folks are trying to pretend that does not reflect in any way on
nominee Mr. Roberts' views on abortion. Both John and Jane are active
members in their local Catholic parish.
Years ago the feminist Left came to realize that they would never
achieve their socialistic goals if they had to rely on normal democratic
processes. So their solution was to impose an abortion litmus test on
the nominations process, seize control of the judiciary, and
short-circuit the notion of government of the people, by the people, and
for the people.
We should all be shedding crocodile tears over the impeding demise of
judicial activism and the socialistic schemes that march under the red
banner of progressive government.
