Printer-Friendly Version

Page 2 of 4

Some will respond to my point about limiting corrective action to the primaries by pointing out that the power of incumbency needs to be broken. But this is a self-defeating argument. After all, once leftists take the reins, they will enjoy the power of incumbency. And why should we think that two years hence conservatives will be able to rise from the ashes of our immolation and break a liberal stranglehold on government?

Now, if you're still sitting there with a red face, pursed lips and folded arms, thinking there is virtue in jumping from the frying pan into the fire, let's gain some perspective.

Things can always be worse. Much, much worse. It's easy to forget this, though, if you listen to the talking bobbleheads in the media and cast your vote based on vague notions about Republican mishandling of Iraq and the fanciful one that Democrats (a majority of Senate Democrats also voted for the war) hold a never revealed panacea. But, while the Democrats offer no magic bullet for the pacification of Iraq, they most certainly are the poisoned pill for something of even greater import: the Supreme Court.

If the Court hasn't occupied the upper tiers of your priority list, tear it up. Remember that courts can effect social engineering by judicial fiat, reshaping America for generations to come. And this practice, involving contravention of the Constitution and known as judicial activism, has been practiced incessantly by leftist judges for decades now.

The best illustration is a real life example. You may remember the Kelo eminent domain decision. This was the outrage wherein, in a five to four vote, the Supreme Court ruled that localities could seize property from one private entity (usually a citizen of modest means) for the purposes of giving it to another private entity (usually a big business that would use it to make money).

Quite fittingly, this un-American decision was assailed from all sides, left, right and center. Despite this, however, most people fail to see the association between their electoral choices and such judicial abuse. So let's identify the culprits.

The five justices who voted to abrogate private property rights were the more liberal ones: Steven Breyer, David Souter, Anthony Kennedy, John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Those standing up for the little guy were William Rehnquist, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia and Sandra Day O'Connor. The late Rehnquist was a rock solid conservative, as are Thomas and Scalia. O'Connor was a moderate who often cast the swing vote.

Now, bear in mind that President Bush has nominated and the Republican Congress confirmed two more good justices to the bench, bringing the total to four -- one short of a majority. And with Stevens being eighty-six years old, there's a fair chance that Bush will have the opportunity to nominate that crucial fifth justice. Who do you want this individual to be? Another in the mold of Ginsberg, who once said,

>> Continued -- Page 1 2 3 4