In a recent editorial, the Washington Post issued a “hope for improvements” from the vitriol, partisan rancor, and blocking of qualified candidates that has increasingly dominated nominations to the federal bench. Don’t hold your breath; this is one hope that will not inspire change during the course of the Obama administration.
No, the poisoning of the judicial appointment process won’t end till courts stop acting as policymakers, finding powers in the Constitution that aren’t there and limiting rights that are. Thus the problem with judicial nominations has less to do with cynical politicians and embittered ideologues than it does with a ”living Constitution” that has been stretched over the years beyond any Founder’s recognition. In failing to enforce the constraints on federal powers – and to protect the rights retained by the people under the Ninth Amendment (along with those covered by the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause and the Fourteenth Amendment’s privileges or immunities clause, to name but the most maligned) – what Alexander Hamilton called the “least dangerous branch” has devolved into a disfunctional policymaking body that understandably attracts political passions. As various parties wrestle to direct the government’s expanded powers in their favor constituents, as my boss Roger Pilon wrote in 2002, “everything is politics, nothing is law.”
Until we reset the balances of power among the branches and the government again abides by its constitutional parameters, I’m afraid that the partisanship and politics of personal destruction surrounding judicial nominations will continue unabated – to the detriment of the nominees, the judiciary, and the country. When so much is at stake, it can be no other way. (You might as well ask elections to be less partisan or otherwise heated.)
But the Post’s editorial is on the right track about one thing: the failure of Republicans to define the word “extremist” when speaking of likely Obama judicial nominees. Democrats and their hard Left brethren were so unsuccesful in blocking John Roberts and Samuel Alito in large part because they had cried bigot about practically every previous lower-court nominee. Instead, let’s define what is unacceptable practically and establish an objective standard for judicial nominees from the new administration. Then it will only be a matter of measuring the degree of support or opposition when analyzing each one’s record. I suggest the following: “An extremist judge is someone who puts policy views over the text of the law as written, someone whose record shows a propensity for rewriting statutes or the Constitution.”
If you don’t like the result you get when following the law or the Constitution, change the law or amend the Constitution. As Oliver Wendell Holmes said when asked whether he would be doing justice on the Supreme Court, “This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice.”