In its Washington Update, the Family Research Council reacts with joy to the news that Sen. Jeff Session has been chosen to become ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee:
Sessions has proven to be a strict constructionist who is unapologetically pro-family on policy matters. One of FRC Action’s “True Blue” awardees, Sessions has a track record of voting for traditional values 100% of the time on key legislative issues … For conservatives, his promotion could not have come at a better time. As Republicans brace for a party showdown over the replacement for retiring U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter, Sessions–an uncompromising voice for faith and family–will be just the man to lead them into battle.
Andrew Grossman is Senior Legal Policy Analyst in the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation writes that while David Souter was “certainly no originalist, in numerous cases [he wrote] opinions that are in accord with the demands of the Constitution and the rule of law.” After citing several such cases, Grossman declares:
In nearly all of these cases, more liberal members of the Supreme Court sought outcomes inconsistent with the Constitution and the rule of law. That block would find additional strength if President Obama appoints a liberal activist to the Court to replace Justice Souter, a center-left moderate, and many cases like those listed above would have had different outcomes. As a result:
* Violent criminals would be freed for minor blunders by police,
* Tough sentences for violent crimes would be struck down,
* Trial lawyers would have more opportunities than ever to launch frivolous, but expensive lawsuits, and
* Victims of crimes would be denied a role in the criminal justice system.
The bottom line: Justice Souter was no conservative and no originalist, but replacing him with a far-left activist would change the balance of the Court for the worse.
Ed Whelan continues to make his case against the possible nomination of Diane Wood, while the Judicial Confirmation Network released its own memo targeting Wood along with Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor:
While President Obama has said he intends to nominate a moderate or a pragmatist, not a liberal activist, it is advisable to take that statement with a grain of salt. Remember, he thinks that the current Supreme Court the majority of which is a liberal judicial activist Court is “right-wing” or “conservative.” If that is his frame of reference (“liberal judicial activist” equals “right-wing”), then his definition of “moderate” may be equally skewed.
Moreover, with the vetting record of this White House and its willingness to appoint to high government posts nominees who have cheated on their taxes and have other ethical problems, any rush to appoint a Supreme Court Justice with lightning speed is all the more unseemly. And it certainly violates the Obama promises of transparency and accountability. We need a fair, orderly process to educate Americans about the potential nominees that the Obama-Leahy machine seems determined to rush through the confirmation process.
Here are three women widely thought to be front-runners for this Supreme Court seat. They are not moderates. They are not pragmatists. They are hard-left liberal judicial activists.