Right On The Right

Only a couple days ago, I wrote a post where I explained an argument I had with a friend about Scalia on abortion. Since then, the 60 Minutes interview with Scalia has aired and our friends at Stop the ACLU have posted a video up that should be seen. Scalia is a brilliant legal mind and has quite some wit:

I've been having a debate with a friend of mine about whether or not Justice Scalia's recent statements are Conservative or more moderate than we've known Scalia to be. First, in case you missed the comments, FOX News has a brief summary:

WASHINGTON — The Constitution doesn't prohibit abortion any more than it allows it, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says in a television news interview to be broadcast Sunday.

Scalia told CBS News' "60 Minutes" that he may be conservative, but he is not biased on issues that come before the court. "I mean, I confess to being a social conservative, but it does not affect my views on cases," Scalia said in excerpts released Thursday.

"On the abortion thing, for example, if indeed I were ... trying to impose my own views, I would not only be opposed to Roe versus Wade, I would be in favor of the opposite view, which the anti-abortion people would like to see adopted, which is to interpret the Constitution to mean that a state must prohibit abortion," Scalia told correspondent Lesley Stahl.

"And you're against that?" Stahl asked.

Scalia replied, "Of course. There's nothing" (in the Constitution to support that view).

My friend, in his debate, is saying that the General Welfare Clause of the Constitution gives the government power to ban abortion for society's general welfare (and theoretically levy taxes to pay for the enforcement of the ban). Unfortunately, he's relying on the old liberal argument that the clause grants government power, when in all honesty it's a descriptor that limits power. I think in this case, Scalia is right, and abortion will either need to be handled by individual states banning the practice after the overturning of Roe, or a Constitutional amendment. I'd take either.

The Conservative blogosphere is still battling over whether or not we should rally behind John McCain in November, and I've went on the record as saying yes. This is the first installment of a series of posts explaining why we need to back McCain. The next President is likely to nominate as many as four replacements for the Supreme Court, and these replacements will have a major impact on our nation. Professor Stephen Bainbridge from PJM attacks the issue:

Those of us who waged war against Miers succeeded in part because in the 2000 campaign Bush had explicitly promised to nominate justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. We demanded that Bush keep that promise and, as it became clear that Miers was made from a different mold, we kept up a stead drum beat of criticism. In the end, we won. Miers was forced to withdraw and Samuel Alito became the newest member of the Supreme Court.

If a President McCain were to nominate a David Souter clone, the right’s netroots would have a collective conniption fit that would make the Miers fight look like pattycake. We might not win, but we’d at least bleed McCain of enough political capital to give even Warren Rudman second thoughts.

All of which suggests that threats by conservative pundits like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter to take their ball and go home if McCain is the nominee make no sense (and I say this as someone who has made similar rumblings in the past). The next President likely will nominate 3-4 Supreme Court justices and 200 to 400 lower court judges. Given the astonishing longevity of Supreme Court justices, moreover, the next President’s Supreme Court picks easily could serve for two or more decades.

Those 200-400 lower court judges will be just as important as the 3-4 (I think it's more probable there will be 2-3) Supreme Court appointments. John McCain fought for Roberts and Alito in the Senate, and we can push him to live up to his campaign promise of nominating Roberts and Alito types. Bainbridge goes on to discuss who the Democrats are liable to throw up, and they're activist judges who would legislate from the bench. If you care about our courts, back John McCain.

Rudy Giuliani has practically ran a campaign on his "I will appoint constructionist judges" line. It's the only way he can convince social Conservatives to support him. Too bad Giuliani has overwhelmingly appointed Democrats and other left-leaning jurists to the bench when he was Mayor of New York. Who has actually appointed constructionists? Mitt Romney. He's now being endorsed by one of the most Conservative judges in history:

Boston, MA – Today, noted conservative jurist Judge Robert Bork endorsed Governor Mitt Romney for President of the United States.

Joining Romney for President, Judge Bork said, "Throughout my career, I have had the honor of serving under several Presidents and am proud to make today's endorsement. No other candidate will do more to advance the conservative judicial movement than Governor Mitt Romney. He knows firsthand how the judicial branch can profoundly affect the future course of a state and a nation. I greatly admired his leadership in Massachusetts in the way that he responded to the activist court's ruling legalizing same-sex 'marriage.' His leadership on the issue has served as a model to the nation on how to respect all of our citizens while respecting the rule of law at the same time."

Judge Bork continued, "Our next President may be called upon to make more than one Supreme Court nomination, and Governor Romney is committed to nominating judges who take their oath of office seriously and respect the rule of law in our nation. I also support Governor Romney because of his character, his integrity and his stands on the major issues facing the United States."

It may be cliche, but an enemy of Teddy Kennedy and the ultra-leftist forces in the Senate is a friend of mine. No one is as hated amongst the liberals on the Senate Judiciary Committee as Judge Robert Bork. Bork was one of the most qualified nominees to the Supreme Court ever, and was only defeated because of a media blitz steeped in lies. Bork endorsing Romney is a plus for Mitt in my book.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is jokingly referred to by many, including myself at times, as the 9th Circus. They're a shining example of a liberal judiciary, and they're infamous for making pro-ACLU, anti-Christian, and downright anti-Constitutional decisions. Hopefully, a new face at the head of the court will change things. Meet Alex Kozinski, and keep his name in your head:

Today, Mary M. Schroeder completes her seven-year tenure as chief judge of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and Alex Kozinski commences his term. The 9th Circuit, which is the biggest and busiest of the 12 regional circuit courts in the country, is also widely believed to be its most liberal -- so it is not insignificant that Schroeder's understated manner and liberal political views contrast with the flamboyant style and conservative perspectives of Kozinski.

The 9th Circuit, which hears federal appeals from California and eight other Western states, has more judges (28) than any other circuit court, receives the highest number of appeals (15,000 annually) and encompasses the largest territory (1.3 million square miles). It also may be the most controversial because of perennial conservative complaints that it is excessively liberal. Repeated efforts to split the court because of its size and controversial politics have proved unsuccessful.

This should be an interesting experiment, seeing if Kozinski can fix the 9th Circus, and if it's successful, it's an argument for more Conservatives in the Executive to appoint these men. That obviously is an argument for Huckabee, Romney, and even McCain, who would most likely appoint people in the mold of Scalia, Alito, and Roberts.