Why Dick Morris is Wrong ...
To think, we were all under the impression Surpreme Court Justices ultimately answer to the Constitution of the United States, guided in a lifetime effort to fairly and properly interpret laws set forth in the defining edict of modern democracy. In turn, the objective is to judiciously enforce laws that are in the best interest of the American people as a collective.
Go figure, it looks like we're wrong. At least that's what former Clinton political advisor and turncoat Dick Morris would have us think. Says Morris about the rumored retirement of Chief Justice Rehnquist in his recent The Hill column on Wed., 7/13/05:
"If Rehnquist were not old and if he were not sick, the self-sacrifice of resignation would be unthinkable to ask. But let him stop kidding himself: He is too sick to sit on the Supreme Court and should resign. He can’t participate in court sessions and only is able to vote through his clerks.Recognizing reality is the ultimate repayment that I think he owes the political party that gave him the opportunity to sit on the high court as its chief justice in the first place. Even more, it is the obligation he owes the nation not to split it apart and enfeeble its president by forcing a litmus-test decision upon him. [this last sentence is a whack attempt at acknowledging and lightly diminishing the extreme nature of the original assertion]"
At issue here is when partisan hackers completely defile the fair intent of our Founding Fathers and their ensuing institution, using the Court as a springboard for partisan action. It's wrong when the right does it; it's equally wrong when the left does it. If a recent compromise between the Bush White House and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) holds weight, then we applaud the rare, prevailing instance of true democratic principle where factions ease tension and save the Republic through old fashioned accord.
We figure that nominations should not be based on party loyalties and that, perhaps in the immediate utopian future, a clause can be inserted in Federal and State constitutions thereby establishing all judicial nominees be Independent and unaffiliated with partisan organizations. Of course, that doesn't address whether a nominee is liberal or conservative - but, it could go a long way towards quieting the likes of Dick Morris. Rehnquist owes no one or no thing but the Constitution he and other justices swore to serve and protect. Anything less than that or mirroring partisan dictate is absolutely criminal.
Go figure, it looks like we're wrong. At least that's what former Clinton political advisor and turncoat Dick Morris would have us think. Says Morris about the rumored retirement of Chief Justice Rehnquist in his recent The Hill column on Wed., 7/13/05:
"If Rehnquist were not old and if he were not sick, the self-sacrifice of resignation would be unthinkable to ask. But let him stop kidding himself: He is too sick to sit on the Supreme Court and should resign. He can’t participate in court sessions and only is able to vote through his clerks.Recognizing reality is the ultimate repayment that I think he owes the political party that gave him the opportunity to sit on the high court as its chief justice in the first place. Even more, it is the obligation he owes the nation not to split it apart and enfeeble its president by forcing a litmus-test decision upon him. [this last sentence is a whack attempt at acknowledging and lightly diminishing the extreme nature of the original assertion]"
At issue here is when partisan hackers completely defile the fair intent of our Founding Fathers and their ensuing institution, using the Court as a springboard for partisan action. It's wrong when the right does it; it's equally wrong when the left does it. If a recent compromise between the Bush White House and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) holds weight, then we applaud the rare, prevailing instance of true democratic principle where factions ease tension and save the Republic through old fashioned accord.
We figure that nominations should not be based on party loyalties and that, perhaps in the immediate utopian future, a clause can be inserted in Federal and State constitutions thereby establishing all judicial nominees be Independent and unaffiliated with partisan organizations. Of course, that doesn't address whether a nominee is liberal or conservative - but, it could go a long way towards quieting the likes of Dick Morris. Rehnquist owes no one or no thing but the Constitution he and other justices swore to serve and protect. Anything less than that or mirroring partisan dictate is absolutely criminal.
posted by BPblogger at 9:54 AM
<< Home