- The Washington Times - Tuesday, October 11, 2005

There has been a strong strain of anti-elitism in America from the Founding, through the period of Jacksonian Democracy and up now. Few want to be tagged with the “elitist” pejorative, including the highest of highbrows themselves, who pretend, despite their feelings of superiority, to be small “d” democrats and champions of the common man.

That’s why critics of the Harriet Miers nomination are taken aback by the unwarranted charge they demonstrate an elitism. Elitism is not driving the doubters’ concerns.

The elitism charge obscures the paramount importance of the Supreme Court to preserving our structure of government and our liberties. We dare not lose sight of what is at stake with these highly infrequent nominations to the Supreme Court.

Our Constitution’s Framers ultimately decided on a structure of government that divided powers between national and state governments and among the three branches of the federal government. These discrete, but partially overlapping branches would each check the others from acquiring too much power at the expense of our freedoms.

This structure, along with limits imposed on government by the later-added Bill of Rights, was designed to prevent tyranny and maximize the prospect for individual liberties.

What the Framers may not have anticipated is the central role the Supreme Court would come to play in inter- and intra-governmental power struggles. But as early as 1803 in Marbury vs. Madison, the court established itself as the final arbiter of constitutional questions.

While some scholars believe the early court arrogated to itself this power of judicial review — the power of the court to declare acts of the legislature and executive unconstitutional — others believe it is inherent in the Article III judicial power.

While it is interesting to debate such questions, the undeniable reality is that judicial review is here to stay. Not a single justice on the current Supreme Court, as far as I know, including Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, would end judicial review. Reviewing the constitutionality of laws is what they do.

The Supreme Court’s power of judicial review is an awesome power because it is the final word, subject to no check, other than that it might impose on itself. And it’s not just any power, but the prerogative to determine the relative powers of all branches and levels of government. It is the power and duty to preserve the integrity of our governmental structure under the Constitution and, thus, our liberties.

While it has a duty to interpret the Constitution according to the plain meaning of its text, and, when possible, the original understanding of the Framers — it has the unchecked capacity, as the system has evolved, to invent constitutional provisions out of whole cloth. The court’s importance, in this light, cannot be overstated. The same is true for each of its justices.

Conservatives, by advocating appointment of the best of the best, are not bowing to elitism or snobbery but recognizing the critical importance of justices. Constitutional jurisprudence, while not rocket science, is indeed a scholarly enterprise.

Some have said that as long as a justice votes “correctly,” it doesn’t matter how brilliant he or she is. But Supreme Court justices don’t just vote. They analyze, discuss, debate and engage in persuasion.

Most, if not all, of the court’s liberal justices are intellectual heavyweights. When a vacancy on the court occurs, the president has a solemn duty to nominate the best and the brightest. He should choose not only strict constructionists, but those who can hold their own against the liberal activist justices who are steadily rewriting the Constitution and removing, brick by brick, its foundation.

Conservative skeptics of the Miers appointment have been saying a pool of extraordinary conservative constitutional scholars exists, whose members have proven, through their legal careers, their unique qualifications and fitness. While they don’t doubt Miss Miers has excellent character and, perhaps, even superior abilities, they don’t see her — at least at this early stage — as possessing the optimum background to sit on the court, compared to so many others.

One wonders whether those crying “elitism” would choose the best available lawyer to represent them if their neck were on the line — in a criminal or civil matter. If they deserve the best in their individual struggles, don’t all Americans in their collective struggle to remain free?

Picking a justice isn’t about rewarding individuals or satisfying gender, race or diversity concerns. It’s about protecting our sacred liberties. Since the best way is to find the brightest constitutional scholars with the requisite character and sound judgment, that is precisely what the president should do. That’s not elitism; it’s essential constitutional stewardship.

David Limbaugh is a nationally syndicated columnist.

Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times is switching its third-party commenting system from Disqus to Spot.IM. You will need to either create an account with Spot.im or if you wish to use your Disqus account look under the Conversation for the link "Have a Disqus Account?". Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide