Open Letter To The US Senate on Supreme Court Opening

To: The US Senate
From: Americablog/Michael in New York
Re: The Supreme Court Vacancy

A vacancy has opened on the Supreme Court and your actions in the next few weeks will determine not just judicial rulings but the lives of every American. I urge you to support the candidacy of conservatives who are in the mainstream of judicial philosophy and can earn broad, bipartisan support and thus the support of the American people. You should do so for three reasons: our nation is at war, our judicial system has been under attack for years by radicals and needs shoring up, and following President Bush's lead on this issue would be political suicide in the upcoming elections.

First, our thanks to Sandra Day O'Connor. This conservative justice would never have been nominated by a Democratic President and her rulings have reflected that. But she has been a moderating influence on both sides of the Court, an inspiration to all Americans (especially women) and has rightly earned the admiration and respect of her country.

Anyone who would begin by ridiculing or attacking Sandra Day O'Connor's record is insulting to Ronald Reagan, the President that put her on the Court, offensive to women and paints themselves as so far out of the mainstream that their opinions aren't worth listening to. Attacking an ill woman who has served her country faithfully for 24 years is the sort of cowardly, indecent and radical behavior that has so polarized this country.

Now, the three reasons the Senate should only support a nominee who can enjoy broad, bipartisan support.

1. Our nation is at war and bitterly divided -- young men and women are dying overseas. Our military is stretched perilously thin. A majority of Americans believe the war was a mistake and most Americans believe George Bush lied to them about the reasons for invading Iraq. Our closest ally, Great Britain, also believes Bush lied about why we invaded Iraq. And the "success story" of Afghanistan is turning into a narco-state (the number one supplier of heroin in the world) ruled mostly by drug lords and the Taliban. With these great and difficult tasks ahead of us, shouldn't the Congress use this opportunity to bring the country together, rise above the politics of personal attack and support a nominee for the Supreme Court that everyone agrees is in the broad mainstream of judicial philosophy? We have too many important problems to conquer. Why create more problems by trying to push through a fringe candidate with radical thinking that will increase the poisonous atmosphere of Washington?

2. Our judicial system is under attack -- for years, people on the far right have been attacking the judiciary and treating it as an annoyance or even unpatriotic branch of the government. (Do those on the far right really think they're smarter than the Founding Fathers like Jefferson and Hamilton and Franklin? Do they really want to dismantle the checks and balances provided by a Presidency, a Congress and an independent judiciary that have served us so well for more than two hundred years?) Clearly, the judiciary needs to be shored up to restore the country's faith in a crucial part of our government. How can you accomplish this? By supporting a nominee who will be bitterly divisive and perhaps ultimately squeak through by the tiniest of margins? Or by supporting a nominee who can earn 80+ votes of the Senate and demonstrate to the country that this Supreme Court justice is a solid one? They won't always vote the way you might want (none ever do), but if they have earned the confidence of a vast majority of the Senate, they're much more likely to earn the confidence of the people as well.

3. Bush's political instincts are poison -- Bush lost the popular vote in his first election and barely gained the White House on reelection, staying up till four in the morning to see who would win Ohio and thus the Presidency. Ever since then, he has behaved as if this slim majority was a resounding popular mandate a la Ronald Reagan. The result? Disastrous political choices that are spelling doom for Republican Senators in the midterm elections. First Bush tried to attack Social Security and change it forever. Then he wanted to push Big Government to intrude into the private tragedy of Terri Schiavo. And as the war in Iraq worsens, Bush behaves increasingly disconnected to the cold, hard realities on the ground. He is the first modern President to refuse to go to a single military funeral. Why? One word: politics. No wonder his poll numbers on all these issues -- and many more -- have fallen dramatically. Do you really want to follow the lead of someone who is stumbling so badly?

It would be great if a new standard could be set for Supreme Court nominees. No matter who is President or who controls the Senate, it should be embarrassing for them to push a nominee that can't enjoy the support of the vast majority of the Senate (say 75+). Surely this most important job should be filled by someone in the broad, moderate mainstream of judicial philosophy, someone who can expect the confidence of the American people.

Perhaps the Gang of 14 Senators who helped call a halt to the filibuster showdown can get together and submit a list of 5 candidates that fit these criteria. It doesn't mean all of them would gain approval after the close scrutiny of Senate hearings. It certainly doesn't mean these candidates would be submitted by the other party if they were in power. It simply means that the role of Supreme Court Justice is too important, too powerful, too influential to be a source of divisiveness and pain for Americans. Like the nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor (who was confirmed unanimously), it should be a source of pride.