President Bush And Judicial Appointments

Here come the judges.

There will be a litmus test for judges in America. The question is whose test?

When Nancy Palosi and Teddy Kennedy say there will be no litmus test for appointment of judges they are saying the president can’t have a defined standard for his appointments. One tactic often applied is to avoid persons noting what you are doing by accusing your opponent of doing what you are doing. In focusing attention on the president having a litmus test they are covering the fact they do have one themselves.

One to watch for is whether a candidate believes in “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” That phrase is in our Declaration of Independence. When the petitions of Americans for redress of their grievances went unanswered by the king the Continental Congress appealed to “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.”

Thomas Jefferson who wrote that phrase was familiar with Blackstone’s writing on law. Blackstone defined it in this way: “This law of nature being co-eval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, and all countries, and at all times; no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately from this original.”

Jefferson was a Deist who believed a deity set the universe in motion and gave their “nature” to everything. To insure this was not the limit intended by the phrase members of the congress concluded the document with a more orthodox Christian reference: “the protection of Divine Providence.”

Current proponents of the concept of “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” are generally inclined toward Constitutional law and interpret law in light of it rather than making contemporary laws that often conflict with the intent of the Constitution.

Watch for that as a catch phrase in and Supreme Court hearing.

The judges to be appointed, like those before them, will dramatically color the conscience of America. One reason Americans elected President Bush was the importance of the appointment of judges. It was known where he stood on the issue and in supporting him they were endorsing the appointment of such judges. They wanted the type judges President Bush would appoint not the type Senator Kerry would recommend. For a minority in Congress to keep appointments grid locked would be to frustrate the will of the people.

Stalwart detractors of the President say he should cooperate with them. Should not they cooperate with him? Who won? Who had a majority of the votes? Who ran saying he would fulfill the promises he made in order to get elected? He said he would appoint justices like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Don’t be surprised if he does. That is what he was elected to do.