Bush owes voters conservative judge

Last week, Sandra Day O’Connor’s retirement created
the first Supreme Court vacancy in 11 years and the left has
subsequently lapsed into an entertaining fit of panic and
desperation. Simply put, the Democrats do not know what to do since
this is not an election. Michael Moore does not have time to force
upon us a fictional documentary, there are only a few weeks to
release malicious TV ads, and the likes of Janice Rogers Brown
cannot be blamed for a war. The president is going to make his
selection and there is little they can do to stop it.

A few Democrats are trying to be on their best behavior ““
not wanting to appear confrontational in the hopes that Bush will
appoint a more liberal choice such as Attorney General Alberto
Gonzales. That’s nice of them. But anyone who enjoys watching
Howard Dean meltdowns on live TV, Al Gore temper tantrums or Mount
Hillary eruptions has been relieved to discover that most Democrats
are not showing any restraint. They cry that they have a right to
give their advice and consent. The Constitution is quite clear
about this.

It states that with the advice and consent of the Senate, the
president shall appoint judges of the Supreme Court. It does not
stipulate from which senators the president must seek advice.
Nonetheless, Senator Kennedy has been thoughtful enough to offer
his. He wants a liberal. Thank you, senator. Now that Bush has
gotten advice from the Senate, he will need consent ““ no easy
task with senators such as Durbin and Kennedy itching to throw down
a filibuster.

But they have lost sight of the fact that it was Bush, not them,
who twice won the presidential election. It is ultimately his
constitutional duty to select a justice. He campaigned on the
promise that his Supreme Court nominees would be strict
constructionists. The 62 million Americans who gave Bush a mandate
last November expect no less.

The most likely candidates for Bush to nominate are appellate
judges John Roberts, Michael Luttig, Michael McConnell, Emilio
Garza, J. Harvie Wilkinson and Janice Rogers Brown. Attorney
General Alberto Gonzales emerged in the press as the early front
runner, but he is too liberal. Due to his involvement in the Bush
administration, he would be forced to recuse himself from many key
cases. Whatever the case may be, this summer will be witness to one
of the most intense political battles in the last one hundred
years, and while I would love to see Democrats wage war over the
already once-filibustered Janice Rogers Brown, I predict that
fourth circuit court of appeals judge Michael Luttig will be
nominated, and confirmed, as the next Supreme Court justice.

The kumbaya crowd in this country wants Bush to nominate
“a consensus nominee” (someone who they agree with).
They want someone who is “sensitive” to women and
minorities. They want someone who is “open-minded” and
amenable to persuasion. Kennedy and company want a guarantee that
the next justice will uphold Roe v. Wade, support affirmative
action, and find the right to sodomy in the Constitution. They
essentially want Bush to re-nominate Sandra Day O’Connor. The
left argues that this would “unite” the country ““
everyone will be happy. No. Democrats will be elated ““
Republicans will be angered. There is not one American alive today
who both sides will be satisfied with.

Now is not a time to bring the country together. It is not time
to offer a gesture to the left. It is not time to negotiate, stand
down, or surrender. Fifty years from now, when Bush’s first
Supreme Court appointee’s mark is still etched on this
nation, nobody will recall the political climate in the summer of
2005. Now is a time to be strong, stubborn and principled. History
will judge whether or not Bush does the right thing, and chances
are that if Teddy Kennedy accuses the nominee of wanting an America
where “blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters,”
as he did to Robert Bork in 1987, Bush will have been
successful.

Kohrs is a fifth-year economics and history
student.