Souter-inspired Thoughts

I wasn't going to write anything about Justice Souter retiring. From a right-wing perspective, I don't see all that much to say. With Obama as president, we are going to get a replacement who is just as bad or worse. Republicans aren't really in a position to do much about it. Our best hope is that Obama nominates someone who is just a mainstream liberal, as opposed to a radical leftist. But whoever we get is likely to have the liberal judicial philosophy that the Constitution means whatever they think it should mean. And that brought something to mind.

The left in general, along with some allies, have been screaming and howling about the legal interpretations of the Bush administration. The Bush legal team came up with creative legal reasoning to justify waterboarding and other borderline coercive interrogation measures. The left is shocked and horrified, to the point that many of them actually favor prosecuting the lawyers for their legal advice. How dare lawyers come up with some sort of legal reasoning that enabled a Republican administration to do what it wanted to do? But when the judicial branch does the same thing, in a far more extreme way in support of liberal causes, they are completely fine with it. As long as it is done in the service of the "correct" cause, the Constitution is just a tool that can be twisted to justify anything they desire. Think I'm exaggerating? Look at abortion.

I personally support abortion rights, but the right to an abortion has nothing to do with the Constitution. Abortion is a right today because of government fiat. The Supreme Court declared it a right, and the government treats it as one. If you disagree, go look at a copy of the Constitution and find the right to an abortion. Most of those who support abortion rights have no problem with the ridiculous legal reasoning behind it. Why? Because it serves the purpose -- legalizing abortion. A significant portion of the left, which strongly supports abortion rights found nowhere in the Constitution, is apparently blind to the right to bear arms, which is plainly spelled out there in black and white. This is why, among other reasons, I find the hysterical outrage at Bush administration lawyers so laughable.

Oh, and back to Souter's replacement... Wouldn't it be nice if we could get an Obama nominee who appeared liberal but turned out to be much more conservative once on the court? That would be a fitting successor to David Souter.