LIAR, COURT'S ON FIRE
By Jon Christian Ryter
July 13, 2005
It's not surprising that President George W. Bush asked the conservative advocacy groups to refrain from making recommendations or nitpicking at his possible Supreme Court picks to replace retiring Sandra Day O'Connor since Bush knows he plans to break his promise to the Christian right to whom he owes his second term in the White House.
Shockingly, most of the conservative PAC groups are listening to him. Free Congress Foundation Chairman Paul Weyrich woefully noted that "...if Mr. [Alberto] Gonzales is nominated, I will neither support nor oppose him. I can't support him because of my constituency, and I can't oppose him because I can't hurt this presidency. I think it would be an unfortunate choice." Weyrich needs to remember that the last time Republicans found themselves in this dilemma, American ended up with Harry Blackmun on the high court.
Weyrich also needs to consider that when Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid—who threatened to filibuster conservative high court nominee—likes the president's choice and says he is qualified, you can bet that "choice" is "unfortunate." Weyrich, who has always been one of those Washington insiders that I admired most, seems to have lost sight of the fact that the United States is not George W. Bush's personal fiefdom, America belongs to the People. And while the People have not been exercising their power and authority over the government, the People are still boss. They will be, that is, until the liberals get enough of their ilk on the US Supreme Court to finish abolishing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights—which won't take long if Alberto Gonzales is confirmed to the high court. Bush's legacy will be his broken promise to his constituents. History remembers George Washington as the man who couldn't tell a lie. It will remember Bush-43 as the man who couldn't tell the truth. And, until now, we thought the liar was Bill Clinton. It appears that Bush-43 will share the Bush-41 legacy—they both lied. Reid said he is satisfied that Gonzales will not upset the ideological balance that currently exists on the high court. I disagree. If you think we got a surprise when Bush-41 appointed David Souter to the US Supreme Court, we're in for an even bigger one if Bush-43 is allowed to get his personal friend Alberto confirmed to the high court.
Gonzales will prove to be the reincarnation of Associate Justice Harry Blackmun—the master architect and pitchman of the decision known as Roe v Wade—but not for his pro-abortion views. Gonzales, like his White House boss and the four social justice diehards on the Supreme Court (and most of the members of the US Senate—on both sides of the aisle—believe the Bill of of Rights interferes too much with the process of governance). Gonzales was Bush-43's friend and personal adviser on what abrogation's of liberty found in the USA Patriot Act were technically legal and therefore permissible under the national emergency created by September 11, 2001, and which needed to wait for an encore when the sunset clause in the Patriot Act brought that legislation back to Congress for an extension—on a voice vote to make its abrogation's of the Bill of Rights permanent.
Clearly Patriot II—the nightmarish encore that will legislatively abolish the Bill of Rights—is still waiting for the confirmation of the right "anti-liberty" justice to join the Liberal Four. Gonzales is the man. With the right man on the high court, the Senate can water down Patriot II with deliberate vagueness and push it through Congress with a degree of confidence that when the bureaucracy installs the teeth through its rule-writing authority, the Supreme Court will further redefine the protections of the Bill of Rights in terms of the UN Declaration of Human Rights when the amended and extended Patriot Act is challenged by conservative PAC groups like Patriots to Restore Checks & Balances, the American Conservative Union, and Free Congress Foundation and the ultra liberal American Civil Liberties Union.
Like the Justices appointed by FDR to protect the New Deal— FDR legal adviser and personal friend Felix Frankfurter, Alabama Senator Hugo Black (who "federalized" the Constitution by showing the federal courts how to use the Bill of Rights against the people) and Harry Blackmun. Blackmun was unanimously appointed to the high court. The Republicans backed Dwight D. Eisenhower's choice, believing they were getting a rule of law jurist. The liberals knew better. Gonzales will be Bush's Blackmun. Although they joined the high court in different eras, Blackmun and Frankfurter were ideological soul mates. Both believed the Constitution was a living document that needed to be periodically reinterpreted by the justices, as the caretakers of social justice, to fit the changing needs of an evolving society in a shrinking world.
Sometime "tomorrow" the US Supreme Court will be asked to decide the fate of three constitutional heartburn issues once and for all. First, the justices will be asked to decide—again—whether women do possess a constitutionally-protected right to kill their unborn children for intruding on their right to privacy. Unfortunately, we already know how Gonzales will vote on this issue. Whether the Attorney General personally believes abortion is a constitutional right or a biblical abomination is unimportant since what matters to the Attorney General is protecting stare decisis —that legal precedents established by previous Supreme Courts are preserved.
After listening to Gonzales address a group of conservative leaders on May 30. 2003 on the issue of stare decisis, J.C. Wilke, president of the Cincinnati, Ohio based Life Issues Institute asked Gonzales if stare decisis should prevail if Roe v Wade comes back up before the high court. Gonzales said, yes, it should. Any rule of law jurist would be obligated to overturn Roe v Wade since there is no constitutional precept that can legally be construed to grant a woman the right to kill her unborn child. Further, protecting the status quo of the court is not the function of the caretakers of the Constitution. Protecting the sanctity of the Constitution is the only job assigned to the justices of the high court—even if that means correcting prior misinterpretations of that sacrosanct document by former justices
Second, the next court will likely be faced with the most unique challenge to the 2nd Amendment since FDR attempted to have it legislatively abolished in 1939. The issue that will likely face the court will be whether a UN Global ban on the private ownership of guns trumps the 2nd Amendment right of American citizens to own firearms. Since banning the private ownership of guns is one of the tenets in the Patriot Act encore that is being pushed hard by US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales it does not take a genius to figure out which side of that issue he is on, and how he would vote on gun control should any 2nd Amendment case show up on the docket of the high court he was on. It would be one down, nine to go.
And third, the next court will decide whether the World Court trumps the US Supreme Court. Today, five of the nine justices have signaled their willingness to consider international court decisions as they deliberate wholly American issues and, whenever applicable laws exist, to incorporate those laws into their decisions, thereby codifying European law into the US Code by weaving the laws of Europe into their decisions and making European law binding upon the citizens of the United States.
All that remains is for the World Court to overrule American case law when American law stands at odds with the laws of the European Union or the precepts of the New World Order. The precedent—stare decisis—already exists. Last year the World Court set aside the death sentences on every Mexican citizen on death row in every prison in the United States and ordered new trials based on a technicality. None of the Mexican nationals had been informed they had the right to consult with the Mexican consulate after they were arrested.
Of course Harry Reid—who voted against confirming Gonzales as Attorney General—is happy with Gonzales' qualifications for the Supreme Court because the liberals know he has already passed the litmus test. He will vote to uphold Roe v Wade. He will vote to outlaw guns. And he believes the justices have an obligation to reinterpret the Constitution to fit today's evolving society. While Bush has asked the conservative PAC groups in Washington not to oppose his nomination, and while Gonzales himself is pandering the right in search of support for his appointment that does not exist, Bush very much intends to nominate him—and the left intends to confirm him. Even gun-foe Chuck Schumer [D-NY] likes him. "Gonzales," the Senator said, "has a strong resume, but until [the] nominee is thoroughly vetted and their positions on those issues are fully understood, it is premature to make any final decisions." The liberals want to make sure they don't appear too eager. Make the right think the left will fight his nomination, and historically, the right will fight to confirm that candidate believing if the left doesn't want him, he must be okay.
Applauding the Bush-planned Gonzales selection from the wings of eternity are the ghosts of Harry Blackmun, Felix Frankfurter and Hugo Black who know that a new advocate of social justice has arrived on center stage who will protect stare decisis on the high court. Long live the bureaucracy since liberty as we remember it has finally been put to death.
© 2005 Jon C. Ryter - All Rights
Order Jon Ryter's book "Whatever Happened to America?"
Jon Christian Ryter is the pseudonym of a former newspaper reporter with the Parkersburg, WV Sentinel. He authored a syndicated newspaper column, Answers From The Bible, from the mid-1970s until 1985. Answers From The Bible was read weekly in many suburban markets in the United States.
Today, Jon is an advertising executive with the Washington Times. His website, www.jonchristianryter.com has helped him establish a network of mid-to senior-level Washington insiders who now provide him with a steady stream of material for use both in his books and in the investigative reports that are found on his website.
...Bush asked the conservative advocacy groups to refrain from making recommendations or nitpicking at his possible Supreme Court picks to replace retiring Sandra Day O'Connor since Bush knows he plans to break his promise to the Christian right to whom he owes his second term in the White House.