- The Washington Times - Wednesday, February 28, 2007

It is understandable that liberal Democratic presidents, beginning with Franklin D. Roosevelt, loaded the Supreme Court with liberal, Democratic justices.

It is far harder to understand how a whole succession of conservative Republican presidents — Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush (41) — managed to appoint so many liberals to the Supreme Court.

All these presidents ran on the idea that what courts in general, and the Supreme Court in particular, needed were judges who followed the law instead of making up their own new laws.

Voters who put these Republican presidents in the White House repeatedly were disappointed with many, if not most, of their nominations of Supreme Court justices.

President Nixon appointed Harry Blackmun, who created a “constitutional right” to an abortion out of thin air, just as previous liberal justices had created all sorts of constitutional rights out of thin air for criminals, vagrants and others.

President Ford appointed John Paul Stevens, whose long history of liberal votes was climaxed by his 2005 decision that politicians can seize private homes and turn them over to other private individuals, who want to replace these homes with amusement parks or shopping malls — which bring in more tax revenues.

Even Ronald Reagan, so eloquent against group preferences and quotas, announced he was going to appoint “a woman” to the Supreme Court during the 1980 election campaign — and later looked for a woman to appoint.

That is how a midlevel state court judge with no experience in the federal judiciary became Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Yet no one said she was “unqualified” as they would later say of Clarence Thomas, whose credentials greatly outweighed hers. Now, a quarter-century later, Sandra Day O’Connor’s legacy of incoherent Supreme Court opinions on such issues as affirmative action and abortion have made a mockery of the very concept of law.

Given the momentous impact of Supreme Court decisions on 300 million Americans today and on generations yet unborn, it is staggering that either presidents or justices themselves cannot keep their eye on the ball and understand the high stakes.

Sandra Day O’Connor was quota-minded before she was appointed and after she retired. Even before she was in the running, she urged President Nixon to appoint “a woman” to the Supreme Court and, decades later, lamented that President George W. Bush did not appoint “a woman” to succeed her.

The stakes for the country and the pressures on Supreme Court justices demand that the best people possible be put on the high court. If that turns out to be nine Asian American men or nine Hispanic women, that is just a footnote to history. But to start out looking for “diversity,” as if you were decorating a Christmas tree with different colored baubles, is to abdicate one of the most solemn responsibilities of a president.

The endlessly repeated mantra of “diversity” is a triumph of the art of propaganda, for not a speck of hard evidence to support it has been asked for or given. Yet President Bush cited “diversity” when he decided to make the aborted nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

Whatever the shortcomings of Democrats, they know what they are for — and are willing to go all out to fight for it. Republicans often seem ambiguous about what they are for and seem to regard fighting as ungentlemanly.

Senate Democrats went all out to stop the nomination of Judge Robert Bork to the Supreme Court and to try to stop the nomination of Judge Clarence Thomas. These Democrats did not let either truth or decency cramp their style.

But Republicans voted overwhelmingly to confirm liberal-left nominees Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer when Bill Clinton nominated them. The Senate vote was 87 to 9 for Justice Breyer and 96 to 3 for Justice Ginsburg.

No need to savage either nominee, but they should have been voted against — and the reasons for those votes explained to the public. Otherwise Democrats define what is a “mainstream” judge.

Republicans need to rethink their views on judges — or perhaps to really think for the first time.

Thomas Sowell 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