Behind the Headlines
Two-Cents Worth
Video of the Week
News Blurbs

Short Takes

Plain Talk

The Ryter Report


Bible Questions

Internet Articles (2015)
Internet Articles (2014)
Internet Articles (2013)
Internet Articles (2012)

Internet Articles (2011)
Internet Articles (2010)
Internet Articles (2009)
Internet Articles (2008)
Internet Articles (2007)
Internet Articles (2006)
Internet Articles (2005)
Internet Articles (2004)

Internet Articles (2003)
Internet Articles (2002)
Internet Articles (2001)

From The Mailbag

Order Books






Openings at $75K to $500K+

Pinnaclemicro 3 Million Computer Products

Startlogic Windows Hosting

Adobe  Design Premium¨ CS5

Get Your FREE Coffeemaker Today!

Corel Store

20 years


By Jon Christian Ryter
Copyright 2002 - All Rights Reserved
To distribute this article, please post this web address or hyperlink

     Disgusted that the Democratically-controlled Senate was dragging its heels on giving U.S. District Court Judge D. Brooks Smith a confirmation hearing after he was nominated to fill a vacancy on the 3rd Circuit Appeals Court by President George W. Bush, Senator vRick Santorum [R-PA] mockingly compared the Democratic foot-dragging by playing on a catch phrase used by the communist-hunting Wisconsin senator Joe McCarthy in the mid-1950s: “Are you now or have you ever been a conservative or a member of a conservative organization?”
     Thus far only seven George W. Bush judicial nominees have been confirmed by the Senate Judiciary Committee which is now headed by Senator Patrick J. Leahy. With reference to Judge Smith, Delaware liberal Democrat Joseph Biden who did his best to kill the nomination of Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas in July, 1991, vowed to kill Smith’s nomination if “...he was not completely forthcoming...” in answering all of the questions poised to him by Senate Democrats, told the Washington Times that he was “...maintaining an open mind inregards to Judge Smith’s confirmation.” On February 26 Biden told Smith “I will do everything in my power to defeat you, including moving to the Senate floor to take action I’ve never taken in my life as a United States Senator—a filibuster.” Smith’s crime? As Santorum said, he is a conservative who believes that the United States is governed by the rule of law, and that the Constitution of the United States is the foundation of law in America.
     In the 16 months since his inauguration, Bush has nominated 65 judicial candidates to fill 128 vacancies on the federal bench. Only 28 have been confirmed. Twenty-nine of Bush’s nominations were to fill federal circuit court vacancies. Six of them have been confirmed. Two of the six were actually Clinton nominees who Bush renominated as a gesture of good will to the Democrats to show he wanted a diverse, bipartisan administration. Out of the 862 Article III federal court benches, there are 100 vacancies—about 20% of the federal judgeships. Half of the seats in the 6th Circuit are vacant. Thirty-nine of the vacancies as “judicial emergency vacancies.”
During his first two years in office, Bill Clinton nominated 22 circuit court judges. Nineteen of them were confirmed. George H.W. Bush nominated 23 with 22 confirmations. Reagan nominated 20 with 19 confirmations. During the latter two years of Clinton’s administration, when the political ideologies of his appointees became so extreme—and therefore less qualified to sit on the federal bench, the GOP controlled Senate deferred voting on several of them, asking Clinton to resubmit candidates who could be approved. Senator Patrick Leahy addressed the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 30, 1997 and said: “Those who delay or prevent the filling of these vacancies must understand that they are delaying or preventing the administration of justice.” Further, the Democratic minority declared that “...instead of cobbling together even more obstacles, Senators should do the work they are sworn and paid to do and fill these vacancies.” Today’s Democratic rhetoric is based on revenge. They insist they chose to delay Bush’s nominees simply because the GOP-controlled Senate left several judgeships vacant believing that Bush appointees would be more to their liking than the liberal Clinton appointees. Further, they very bluntly justify their actions by insisting that the Bush appointees are too “far right” and, therefore, are not acceptable to a majority of the American people who, they feel, are as left of center as they. Ignored in their analysis are the views of the American people whom Congress has ignored for too long. When the Senate began dragging their heels in confirming Bush’s judicial appointments last spring, a national survey was taken in May, 2001 in which the respondents were asked what “standards” should be applied by President Bush in selecting judges he intended to nominate for the federal bench.
     By a 2-to-1 margin the American people replied that they believed that President Bush’s promise to appoint judges who would strictly interpret the Constitution “...and will not use the bench to write social policy...” is the “...proper standard for appointing judges.” And by a majority of 48% to 36% Americans opposed the tactics applied by Senate Democrats who were attempting to block Bush’s political appointments based entirely on their political ideology because that ideology is based on the concepts of the rule of law rather than achieving “social justice” for minorities at the expense of the majority through judicial activism. (And, today it is important to realize that the “minorities” who are seeking “enfranchisement” are not African Americans. They are ideological minorities—homosexuals, lesbians, atheists and radical feminists who are determined to completely destroy the precepts of family values in America by eliminating Christianity as the bedrock faith of America.
     More now than ever before in the history of the United States the liberals are determined to stop the influx of Constitutionally-conservative judges to the bench because very likely within the next decade the new “confirmable” nominees for the United States Supreme Court will come from the ranks of US District Court and Circuit Court judges. When the Supreme Court was forced to weigh in on the 2000 Election—and based entirely on the “rule of law”—weighed in favor of Texas Governor George W. Bush, outrage echoed through the largely left-wing law schools of America.
     According to Roger Pilon in an Insight on the News interview, “...In January some 550 professors from 120 [law] schools ran a full page ad in the New York Times decrying the high court’s majority for having acted not as judges but as ‘political proponents for candidate Bush.’” It goes without saying that had the Justices ruled in favor of Gore, the decision would have not only been acceptable to them, it would have been appropriate since, in their view, Gore had won a popular vote victory. (My latest book, DESTINY DENIED, which should be off press shortly will reveal precisely how Mr. Gore achieved that “popular” victory. It did not come from winning properly cast “legal” ballots. In fact, the book will show that Gore’s popular vote victory resulted from illegal manipulation of the electoral system in several different ways that should have resulted in investigations of several key Gore campaign officials and perhaps hundreds of Democratic officials at both State and County levels all across the country.)
     The liberals, using Ralph Neas, president of the People For the American Way (whose agenda is anything but American) as their unofficial spinmeister, do not see what Senator Santorum called a “Republican witch hunt.” Senator Leahy justified the Democratic foot-dragging by saying that “...Republicans held up 167 judicial nominations by the end of the Clinton Administration.” In analyzing Leahy’s comment, Paul Weyrich’s Free Congress Foundation noted that “...if ‘held up’ means means kept 167 Clinton nominees from being confirmed, that claim is false. A Congressional Research Service [CRS] report shows that the Senate confirmed 173 of 230 judicial nominations it received during the 104th and 105th Congress...The Senate confirmed 72 of 117 nominations it received during the 106th Congress. The Republican-led Senate left 102 Clinton nominees unconfirmed.” Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle justified the foot-dragging by saying that “...Over 45% of all circuit court judge nominees never got to see the light of day in the last five years. [None] were given a hearing, [none were] vetted, heard [or] voted on.”
     Daschle’s words were a misstatement of fact. Daschle, like most good liberals, can pull “magic numbers” from the sky whenever they are needed. In point of fact, 61% of all of Clinton’s judicial nominees were approved. Thirty-nine percent, after hearings, were not approved. Most of those nominated received their “day in court.” One hundred nominees remained unapproved in part because of the ‘final days” rush on the part of Bill Clinton to nominate liberals for every own bench seat. (Arizona Democratic Senator Henry Reid claimed that 55% of Clinton’s nominees never saw the light of day. He should have compared notes with Daschle. While both were wrong, having the same numbers would have bolstered the arguments of each.)
     Most of the unconfirmed Clinton judicial nominees were opposed by the State, county and municipal police agencies—and the State and County prosecuting attorneys—of their own States as being far too liberal in their views on “law and order.”
     When the police and the prosecutors tell the Senate that these judicial nominees are “soft on crime” those judges become part of the problem and not the solution.
     Ralph Neas, president of Norman Lear’s far left advocacy group People For the American Way, who led the fight to kill Pickering’s nomination is now leading the fight against Smith. Neas insists that the ideology of federal judiciary nominees matters now more than ever before.
     Neas, the pitbull being used by Leahy to convince the American people that George W. Bush is attempting to pack the federal judiciary with right-wing candidates who would have the power to reverse the civil rights “advancements” of the last decade, or decide whether women will continue to have the right to kill their unborn children under the guise of “reproductive choice.” Neas opined that the liberals must question the nominees ideologies—adding by that he did not mean the political beliefs of the nominee, but their judicial views. Clearly that was not the case when the Senate Judiciary Committee refused to even consider Judge Pickering whose judicial decisions are centrist. Pickering should have been an easy confirmation.
     Defending the Smith nomination in early April, Santorum declared that Leahy is “...on a witch hunt.” Leahy denied Santorum’s allegations, saying that “We are moving forward as quickly as we can, and I will continue to do that. No matter what is said on the other side,” Leahy added, “no matter how much things are taken out of context, no matter how much friction we hear on the floor from that side, I will move them forward.” Forward to what—oblivion?
     Santorum was right.
Joe Biden confirmed that when he told Smith that he would do everything in his power, including a filibuster, to make sure that Smith was not approved.
     Clearly, revenge plays a small role in the ideology witch hunt now taking place in the US Senate, but protecting the political agenda that is wrought by judicial activism is much more important. The left-wing of the Democratic Party knows that the agenda they are fabricating through the federal courts could never be successfully legislated and signed into law even by a liberal president posing as a moderate “New Democrat.” That is why Hillary Clinton’s Health Security Act of 1994 failed to pass in a Democratically-controlled House and Senate. Those on the Hill want to get re-elected.
     If, on the other hand, laws are left vague enough, they will end up in a federal court room where the magistrate has the latitude to “interpret” what Congress meant when they wrote the law. Liberal judges use judicial activism to judicially legislate the societal agenda of the left-wing with impunity since they are appointed to lifetime positions. They have no fear of being thrown out of office during the next election. Conservative judges, on the other hand, are generally not political activists, and therefore are more inclined to apply the existing constitutional rule of law in rendering their decisions. That does not bode well for liberals who need judicial activism to promulgate their left-wing agenda that cannot be legislated.
     Neas, in his attacks on Pickering and Smith insist that the personal political pedigrees of judicial nominees have always been questioned and that Presidents have always appointed nominees based entirely on whether that nominee would promulgate the Party’s political ideology. To prove his argument, Neas’ cited the failure of George Washington to get his first Chief Justice nominee cleared by the Senate in 1795, noting that approximately 20% of John Adams’ high court nominees were rejected. It should be noted that Adams attempted to convert the office of President to the role of pseudo-monarch and attempted to legislate laws that made it a criminal offense to speak out against the President. Adams was repudiated by the States with the publications of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolves that denounced Adams’ sedition acts and ended Adam’s political career.

Judicial Activism
     Prior to the election of the Jacobin stooge, Gen. Ulysses S. Grant, federal judges—particularly US Supreme Court judges—were selected based on one of two criteria. First, judges who were considered for appointment to the high court were “judged” on their knowledge of constitutional law and whether or not decisions they rendered were upheld or overturned by higher courts. Second, the spoils system came into being during Grant’s administration when Credit Mobilier of America and Standard Oil began the rampant buying of Congressmen and Senators, and wealthy contributors were paid off with plum civil service jobs, the most sought after being federal judgeships since they were lifetime appointments. Cronyism not political ideology was the yardstick by which these candidates were measured. When they failed to secure confirmation it was not because they were ideologically-opposed to the Party which controlled the Senate (since the GOP controlled both Houses of Congress and the White House from 1861 to 1877), it was because the nominees were completely lacking in qualifications.
     Most federal judgeships during that era were political payoffs to party loyalists. The same is true of the Supreme Court. Supreme Court justices were largely powerful former Senators or Congressmen who used their political clout to secure lifetime berths to protect legislation they created.
     When New York Governor Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected to the presidency on a pledge to create a “new deal” for the working man in 1932, he immediately embarked on the titanic task of creating a blatantly unconstitutional agenda that would ultimately strip both the Judicial and Legislative branches of government of much of their authority as he created an unconstitutional fourth branch of government—the bureaucracy—to manage the behemoth monster he was creating to funnel all of the powers of governance into the hands of the Executive Branch—or more specifically, into the hands of Franklin D. Roosevelt.
     As Roosevelt’s New Deal Congress rubber-stamped legislation (largely written by FDR brain-truster Raymond Moley and his team of socialist lawyers, American Civil Liberties co-founder Felix Frankfurter, a close Roosevelt advisor, and New Deal Senator Hugo Black who pushed FDR’s bills through Congress, getting Congressmen and Senators to cast their votes on bills without ever reading them) the Supreme Court found itself flooded with challenges to the New Deal laws. In many cases, in order to get the cases before the high court, companies affected by Roosevelt’s unconstitutional regulations sued themselves.
     The third New Deal law, enacted on May 12, 1933 (the Agricultural Adjustment Act) was the first New Deal law to be declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court. It would not be the last. Buried within this law was a clause (that Congress, which would have had to have read the proffered legislation to know the clause existed) that transferred the authority to “coin” money from Congress to the President, and another clause that gave the Federal Reserve dictatorial control over the expansion or contraction of consumer credit (which gave the Fed even more control over creating recessions on whim). What brought that legislation before the high court was not the fact that Roosevelt had usurped the separation of powers with respect to coining money, but rather because Roosevelt attempted to “nationalize” farming by controlling farm production and the pricing of agricultural products in the United States.
     Congress, which today cannot distinguish between constitutional and unconstitutional laws, developed that penchant in the early 1930s simply because it was expedient to do so. The fact that the laws they were enacting violated the Constitution meant nothing to them since they believed the “national emergency” deliberately created by the Federal Reserve and promulgated by Roosevelt mandated extreme, even if illegal, measures to address real problems that affected real people. Once the precedent for legislating laws that skirted constitutionality was codified, the courts began to view them as legal. In the case of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, which appeared before the court in the form of United States v. Butler, et al., Receivers of Hoosac Mills Corporation. The Supreme Court, in voiding the law, stated that the law infringed on rights reserved exclusively for the States. Next to fall was the National Industrial Recovery Act, which was originally passed on May 17, 1933. Next to fall was the Railway Pension Act of 1934. Suddenly the floodgates opened and, one by one, almost every piece of legislation dealing with the New Deal was declared unconstitutional by the Hughes Court because Roosevelt violated the separation of powers as he attempted to take dictatorial control of government.
     FDR was not a happy camper. One-by-one, nine old men were dismantling the New Deal almost as fast as Congress legislated it. Congress, voting the whim of the Democratically leadership that was taking its marching orders from the White House, could not seem to get it through their heads that the US Supreme Court was not going to allow Roosevelt to create laws that ignored the constitutional separation between the States and the central government, or between the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government since each New Deal law allowed the unconstitutional fourth branch of government, the bureaucracy, to establish the regulations by which the laws would be managed. The bureaucracy, in writing the regulations, were actually legislating laws. Then, without a vote by the people’s representatives, the regulations were posted in the Federal Register. If the regulations were not contested by Congress within 90 days, the regulations became codified—they became as much a part of the law as that which was legislated by constitutional procedures. The bureaucracy also granted itself “judicial power” to find violators guilty and assess penalties in the form of fines or imprisonment—or both—without trials...functions that belong exclusively to the Judicial Branch of government.
     Slowly, Roosevelt got the message.
     Not even his fabricated “national emergency” would allow him to arbitrarily expand his authority beyond that provided by the Constitution. In fact, the Supreme Court was getting tired of Roosevelt’s trite harping on a national emergency that no longer existed after FDR stopped the gold drain by illegally outlawing the private ownership of gold by American citizens.
     Homer Cummings, FDR’s attorney general, who was advised by a minor Roosevelt aide named Samuel Rosen that most of the New Deal defeats came from one vote losses in the high court, suggested to Roosevelt that he seek legislation to appoint two or three more Supreme Court justices, taking the nine member court to twelve. Roosevelt decided to expand the court even more to protect his New Deal agenda.
     On February 4, 1937 Roosevelt summoned Senate Majority Leader Joe Robinson, House Speaker John Bankhead, and Judiciary Chairmen Hatton Sumners from the House and Henry Ashurst from the Senate to let them know he had just sent a bill to Congress that would allow him to appoint a new Associate Justice for each Justice over the age of 70 who refused to resign from the court. The new legislation would allow him to add up to six new Justices. While each of the Congressmen and Senators were shocked that Roosevelt believed he could stack the court with those ideologically-tied to the New Deal, Hatton Sumners believed his ship had come in. Roosevelt would owe him “big time” when he delivered the legislation to the White House.
     Sumners aside, the mainstream liberals in Congress who were most closely aligned with FDR were angered when they realized that Roosevelt was attempting to politicize the Supreme Court. If he succeeded, the leadership in the House and Senate knew that an unbiased Supreme Court would no longer exist. Federal judges at all levels would be appointed based not on their judicial qualifications but their political ideologies and party pedigrees.
     The task of killing Roosevelt’s court-stacking plan fell on two of Roosevelt’s closest liberal allies in the Senate: Burton K. Wheeler and Carter Glass. On the House side, Sumners and Bankhead were prepared to push the legislation through the House even though they knew it would politicize the Supreme Court.
Once Wheeler and Glass leaked word of what FDR was attempting to the media, Congress and the White House was flooded with 50,000 angry telegrams within 24 hours. Although Sumner had the votes to push Roosevelt’s court-stacking plan onto the floor of the House for a vote, where it would likely die, Sumners and Bankhead got cold feet and buried the bill. If the Senate passed it, Sumners decided, he would resurrect the bill and force it through the House. Glass and Wheeler, however, were very effective in painting Roosevelt’s plan for what it was—an attempt on the part of the White House to add up to six new ideologically-linked associate justices on the high court who would rubber stamp the unconstitutional New Deal legislation. The expansion bill died a bitter death. Instead of blaming Samuel Rosen who actually dreamed up the idea, FDR fired his Attorney General, Homer Cummings who had eagerly claimed credit for the plan, replacing him with New Dealer Michigan governor Frank Murphy.
     With his court-stacking plan dead, Roosevelt tried to initiate a bill that would force every Justice over the age of 70 to retire. This would have obligated three of the justices to step down. Two of the post-70 justices confided to Sumners that the only thing stopping them from retiring at that moment was the fact that their pensions were half of their incomes and neither could afford the pay cut. Within three months the Democratically-controlled Congress enacted legislation that increased the pensions of retiring Supreme Court justices. Associate Justices Willis VanDevanter and George Sutherland announced their retirement. While Roosevelt wanted to nominate Senator Hugo Black, who pushed most of FDR’s New Deal legislation through the Senate, and braintruster Felix Frankfurter as his first picks for the high court, Roosevelt was certain that Glass and Wheeler would sabotage Frankfurter’s nomination since the Vienna born jurist wrote most of the New Deal legislation that Black rammed through the Senate. In place of Frankfurter, whose position on the Supreme Court would not be confirmed until 1939, Roosevelt named Stanley Reed, the Solicitor General who had been defending the New Deal legislation before the high court since 1935. In 1937 Black and Reed, the New Deal advocates, joined the high court. When Frankfurter joined the court in 1939, the New Deal bureaucracy would be successfully codified for all time. The United States Supreme Court had been politicized. From that moment forward politics, not constitutional qualifications, became the yardstick by which the Senate measured the cloth of every candidate for the high court with the Party that controlled the Senate determining what ideological “pattern” would be acceptable for admission to the bench.
     If the nominees are eminently qualified for seats not only on the high court but the appellate and district courts as well—as were both D. Brooke Smith and George W. Pickering—then a filibuster is used to keep the nomination from being voted on in committee or brought to the full Senate for a floor vote.
     Probably the two best examples of the politicizing of the United States Supreme was the 1939 addition of Frankfurter to the high court and the 1985 denial of a seat to US District Court Judge Robert Bork. Bork, who was nominated by Ronald Reagan, was recognized by friend and foe alike as the leading constitutional authority in the United States. His reputation was spotless. His judicial credentials were impeccable. Not one of the more than 400 judicial decisions that Bork wrote or joined into were ever reversed by a higher court. The “flaw” in his character as far as the liberals were concerned was his private stand on abortion and his view that the Constitution was not an “evolving” document that was subject to reinterpretation by the high court.
     In what proved to be the most controversial Supreme Court nomination in US history (even more so than the Clarence Thomas hearing), the Senate Judiciary hearing, chaired by Sen. Joe Biden amassed a plethora of feminist activists who argued that Bork would single-handedly overturn Roe v. Wade. On the streets of America, the AFL-CIO campaigned against Bork as a fascist who would destroy the bedrock of democracy in America since Bork did not believe the high court justices had the right to “reinterpret” what the Constitution means in order to better “serve” an evolving society through judicial activism. Bork, the most qualified jurist of his day was denied a seat on the high court.
     Conversely, Felix Frankfurter’s nomination to the Supreme Court was rubber-stamped by the New Deal Congress in 1939 specifically to protect the utopian agenda of the Roosevelt Administration from being short-circuited by the high court. Once Roosevelt managed to politicize the high court, the Supreme Court went back and readdressed several New Deal laws they had previously ruled as unconstitutional—suddenly deciding those laws just may have been within the scope of Congress to enact after all. By legitimatizing the New Deal laws, the US Supreme Court legalized an unelected bureaucracy that now rewrites the original intent of the laws passed by Congress through rule making provisions that allow bureaucrats to “amend” any law with regulations that can, and sometimes does, change the original intent of the law.
     Frankfurter, like Bork, was viewed by his peers as a constitutional scholar. But he was an enigma in that he, like Roosevelt, believed that the Constitution was an archaic and outmoded document. The Vienna, Austria-born jurist believed the Constitution must be construed as an evolving document that could be reinterpreted by the Court to better serve the needs of an evolving society—or better stated, to fit the evolving needs of the central government attempting to usurp the supra-authority of the States.
     Although the practice of legislating from the bench is expressly forbidden to the federal courts by the Constitution, Frankfurter and the associate justices who followed him like Harry Blackmun who “saw” somewhere in the Constitution a woman’s right to slaughter her unborn child and wrote the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade, Doe v. Bolton which declared that a woman has such an inherent right to privacy that she can kill the baby within her womb for intruding on that right. Frankfurter declared that he “found” that right in the 14th Amendment, but that it may well be construed in the 8th and 9th Amendments as well. Clearly, constitutional scholars have been searching for a “home” amendment for the right to murder, but thus far none have found it. Roe v. Wade is now referred to as the “wandering Jew” of constitutional law since it has no home amendment to which it can be tethered.
     Blackmun later admitted that the “right to kill the unborn” did not exist until the Supreme Court said it did. What is interesting in that three decade old ruling is that, on one hand, the Supreme Court ruled (and continues to uphold) the right of a woman to rid her body of an unwanted fetus (based on an assumption that a fetus is not a human being), while on the other, the lower federal courts continue to rule that the unborn are human beings who are entitled to the protection of the courts.
     While most Americans are not aware of it, Frankfurter was the architect of most of Roosevelt’s New Deal laws. Hugo Black hammered them through the Senate, and then Solicitor General Stanley Reed (Roosevelt’s third pick for the Supreme Court) fought in the courts to have the New Deal declared constitutional. Frankfurter, who understood the utopian agenda behind the New Deal better than anyone else, joined the high court in 1939. Frankfurter would protect the New Deal until he retired from the high court in 1962. Frankfurter, using the precedent created by John Marshall (but invalidated by the ratification of the 11th Amendment) claimed that the “commerce clause” was an actual enumerated right of the federal government rather than simply a declaratory preamble which merely specified that it was the responsibility of the central government to provide for the general welfare of the people of the United States and promote commerce through the specific enumerated rights delineated in the Constitution. To make certain the central government understood that their authority over the States and over the people was limited to a very narrow spectrum, the 10th Amendment stipulated the rights not specifically ascribed to the central government were reserved exclusively for the States and the people.
Frankfurter, a Marxist who believed that government was, or should be, omnipotent, brought that “government knows best” philosophy to the high court—an ideology shared by Roosevelt who filled most of his key departmental slots with like-minded socialists.
     From 1973 forward all Supreme Court nominees have been selected—or rejected—based on their political pedigrees or, at least, their perceived political or societal ideologies. When George H.W. Bush nominated Clarence Thomas to replace African-American Associate Justice Thurgood Marshall who announced his retirement on June 27, 1991, the liberals—and the black community as an entity—did everything they could to sabotage the nomination. When the far left demanded that Bush appoint a black jurist to replace Marshall, they apparently did not think Bush could find a qualified conservative African-American. When Thomas’ conservative bonafides were published in the mainstream (liberal) media, the outcry began. When the Senate confirmation hearings began in September, liberals dug up a former aide of Thomas’, Anita Hill, a law professor at the University of Oklahoma who leveled allegations of sexual harassment against the jurist.
     Hill maintained that when she worked for Thomas when he headed the Equal Opportunities Commission he had inappropriate discussions with her about sex, sex acts and pornographic movies—after he declined his invitation to date him.
     In reality, Thomas was ideologically too far to the right to suit civil rights activists. Most African-American civil rights advocacy groups openly opposed him strictly because of his conservative views, including his stance against affirmative action programs. The liberals, who knew they could not attack Thomas based on his conservative leanings, chose instead to argue that Thomas, who was only 43, was simply too young for the high court. In addition, Thomas had been a federal judge for only two years. The liberal American Bar Association declared that Thomas was too inexperienced for the high court.
     Unable to discredit him any other way, Biden touted out Hill who briefly became an icon of the feminist movement. But, in the end, Thomas’ credentials proved sufficient and in a 52 to 48 vote of the full Senate, Clarence Thomas became an Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court.
Since 1938 the US Supreme Court has been used as a political devise not to protect the sanctity of the Constitution, but rather, to promulgate the political agenda of whichever political party that simultaneously controls both the White House and the US Senate.
     People For the American Way president Ralph Neas in a rhetorical justification of the liberal attack on conservative jurists, said the conservative majority on the high court has resurrected the States rights doctrine “...that many of us believed had been put to rest for good in the 1960s...” [Insight on the News, Symposium; pg. 40, Feb. 12, 2002]. Neas apparently has not done an “ideological head count” on the high court lately. Four of the associate justices: Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Stephen Breyer, John Paul Stevens and David Souter are hardcore liberals. (Except that Ginsberg is a “closet conservative” on States rights issues—a fact ignored by the Clintons when they added her to the high court.) The three conservatives (not a majority by any stretch of the imagination) are Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Associate Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. The swing votes, which more often vote with the liberals than the conservatives on societal issues or on rulings in which petitioners are asking the high court to change their views on previously issued rulings, are Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy. Kennedy and O’Connor are generally grouped with the three solid conservative members of the high court only because neither of them are fans of judicial activism. Ginsberg (except in States rights issues), Breyer, Stevens and Souter believe they have an obligation to use their power to “correct” past injustices to minorities by reinterpreting the Constitution to fit the evolving needs of a continually evolving society on the mistaken assumption that the Founding Fathers could not have envisioned the problems faced by a culturally diverse society in a new century.
     In reality, the Founding Fathers did take societal evolution in consideration when they wrote the Constitution. They provided the people with the tools they needed to amend the Constitution at will; and gave the people the means to generate the laws needed to guide them down the path to the future. What troubles the utopians is that to remodel America they need to recast the rights provided by the Constitution in such a way that government, not God, is construed as the grantor of all rights and privileges and that the freedoms we enjoy is not inherent.
Even more important is the evolution of law itself as the world shrinks in distance and nations become States within a global community of nation-states like the European Union as they surrender external sovereignty to the invisible emprey of the United Nations, and America submits to the international edicts and laws of the invisible government of the Utopians of the New World Order.

     Author’s Note: For a more thorough understanding of how the Roosevelt Administration politicized the judiciary based on philosophical ideology of the left, read Chapter 14 of WHATEVER HAPPENED TO AMERICA? To learn more about the destruction of sovereignty in America and the emerging New World Order, read chapters 15 through 18 of the same book. The American people need to educate themselves on what their political leaders are doing in Washington, and how the laws they are enacting in the nation’s capitol dovetail with the agenda of the United Nations.




Just Say No
Copyright 2009 Jon Christian Ryter.
All rights reserved