| May 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
I've been wondering why the Alito confirmation hearings have been going as smoothly as they seem to be. It was just last week that Drudge had a giant headline saying, "Democrats Plan to Destroy Alito." Mark Levin discusses why:
...the judiciary has so exceeded the bounds of its legitimate authority that the public has taken notice of, and interest in, its egregious abuses of power. From upholding the seizure of homes and barring a display of the Ten Commandments in a courthouse, to conferring rights on terrorists and benefits on illegal immigrants, the accumulation of these policy decisions are troubling not just to conservative intellectuals, but wide swaths of American society which are affected directly by these rulings.
Conservatives have also done a superior job in explaining their case against judicial activism by way of the new media. Long before these hearings, Rush and Sean, among others, have been educating millions about the framers' intended limits on the judiciary, and have exposed the underlying hostility for representative government motivating the judicial supremacists. The Left is now forced to defend the idea that the dictates of nine lawyers in black robes should set national policy, while conservatives are defending popular sovereignty and the founding principles.
The liberal senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee look frustrated and sound incoherent because, well, they are. Their problem is that when you don't have fidelity to the written Constitution, your judicial philosophy, such as it is, consists of nothing more than strained and often contradictory arguments made for the purpose of advancing a political and policy agenda. Hence, we hear Dianne Feinstein demand from Alito adherence to judicial precedent respecting Roe v. Wade (Arlen Specter refers to is as super-precedent), and in the next breath acceptance of something called a living and breathing Constitution.
Levin's analysis indicates that public opinion is moving in the direction of strict interpretation of the Constitution. This would be a big win on what appears to be the single most important judicial issue of the decade.
