The President's nominee

The President fully redeemed himself yesterday in his nomination of Sam Alito, Jr. to the Supreme Court of the United States. I say this not simply because I believe that Mr. Alito is a conservative who will overturn Roe v. Wade, but because he is an extraordinarily well qualified candidate with many years of experience as a judge, prosecutor, clerk, and reserve soldier.

Mr. Alito clerked for Justice Leonard Garth of the Third Circuit after graduating from Yale Law School in 1975. He served as an assistant US Attorney and later as US Attorney for the District of New Jersey, in which he had several important cases against the mob. Alito served in the Army reserve and was honorably discharged as a captain. In 1990 he was appointed to the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit by George H.W. Bush. He has spent his life serving this country honorably, with excellence, and with distinction.

While Harriet Miers may have voted conservatively on the court and proven to be an adequate justice, she did not have the credentials that come close to matching those of Alito. Not only does Alito have a strong record of achievement and brilliance in his opinions, but he has the education and prestige to back up his intellect. It may never be clear why Miers was nominated over Alito in the first place, but clearly the President got it right the second time around.

Democrats will certainly try to oppose Mr. Alito at every turn. NOW  has already begun protesting against his nomination at the Supreme Court, a very encouraging sign for Republicans. Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy, and Dick Durbin will all oppose Alito vehemently. The moderates like McCain, Snow, Hagel, and others in the GOP might be nervous about Alito being strongly conservative, but they shouldn't be. It is about time that we have an honest debate in this country about the role of the courts as set out in the Constitution. Democrats improperly see the court as an institution which can be used to get around the legislature, make law without going through the democratic process, and social engineering. It is time to put those beliefs to the test of American public opinion.

The judiciary is to act as a check on the power of the legislature and the executive. It is there to interpret the law and the Constitution, but not to make policy or create law. The Court is to protect the rights of minorities against the tyranny of the majority; however, it is also not to subvert the will of the majority in substituting its own wisdom for that of the people's representatives.

The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land to interpret American law and the American Constitution, for the benefit of the American people. It should never use foreign law or precedent to decide cases. The Constitution states in Article III section 2, "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority." Foreign law is simply that, foreign. It is as out of place in American jurisprudence as sushi is in MacDonald's.

The Constitution is not a living, breathing document as Justices Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer would have us believe. The Constitution was designed to be a foundation for the preservation of freedom and our liberal democracy. The Constitution can change by the amendment process, but its core principles are universal and applicable to all of humanity. As the Founding Fathers stated, "we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal..." Textualism is not merely an ideology, rather it should be a necessity and prerequisite for any Supreme Court judge.

The spirit of the law is indeterminable by courts. The legislature can only indicate the rationale and spirit of laws by the language used in the statutes themselves. Legislative history can be a guide, but should never be the authority for deciding cases, as any first year law student can tell you.

If the Democrats are going to oppose Alito, they are going to have to tell the American people that they are in favor of activist judges, subversion of the legislature by the judiciary, and in opposition to the historical role of the courts. Article I section 1 of the Constitution states, "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." Thus, the judiciary is never to make law, but only to interpret it.

We need to remember that democracy is not designed for efficiency. Striking down a law as unconstitutional is within the power of the judiciary, but it should then be the mandate of the legislature to re—write that law so that it conforms to the Constitution. The courts are not to read beyond the actual text of statutes to impose what they believe the law should be.

I believe Sam Alito can be trusted to observe the rightful place of judges in our system. His record indicates that he will not impose his own will, but will act in conformity with the Constitution to uphold the rights of Americans that are, as the framers stated, self evident to all of humanity.

Jonathan D. Strong, Esq. publishes The Strong Conservative

The President fully redeemed himself yesterday in his nomination of Sam Alito, Jr. to the Supreme Court of the United States. I say this not simply because I believe that Mr. Alito is a conservative who will overturn Roe v. Wade, but because he is an extraordinarily well qualified candidate with many years of experience as a judge, prosecutor, clerk, and reserve soldier.

Mr. Alito clerked for Justice Leonard Garth of the Third Circuit after graduating from Yale Law School in 1975. He served as an assistant US Attorney and later as US Attorney for the District of New Jersey, in which he had several important cases against the mob. Alito served in the Army reserve and was honorably discharged as a captain. In 1990 he was appointed to the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit by George H.W. Bush. He has spent his life serving this country honorably, with excellence, and with distinction.

While Harriet Miers may have voted conservatively on the court and proven to be an adequate justice, she did not have the credentials that come close to matching those of Alito. Not only does Alito have a strong record of achievement and brilliance in his opinions, but he has the education and prestige to back up his intellect. It may never be clear why Miers was nominated over Alito in the first place, but clearly the President got it right the second time around.

Democrats will certainly try to oppose Mr. Alito at every turn. NOW  has already begun protesting against his nomination at the Supreme Court, a very encouraging sign for Republicans. Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy, and Dick Durbin will all oppose Alito vehemently. The moderates like McCain, Snow, Hagel, and others in the GOP might be nervous about Alito being strongly conservative, but they shouldn't be. It is about time that we have an honest debate in this country about the role of the courts as set out in the Constitution. Democrats improperly see the court as an institution which can be used to get around the legislature, make law without going through the democratic process, and social engineering. It is time to put those beliefs to the test of American public opinion.

The judiciary is to act as a check on the power of the legislature and the executive. It is there to interpret the law and the Constitution, but not to make policy or create law. The Court is to protect the rights of minorities against the tyranny of the majority; however, it is also not to subvert the will of the majority in substituting its own wisdom for that of the people's representatives.

The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land to interpret American law and the American Constitution, for the benefit of the American people. It should never use foreign law or precedent to decide cases. The Constitution states in Article III section 2, "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority." Foreign law is simply that, foreign. It is as out of place in American jurisprudence as sushi is in MacDonald's.

The Constitution is not a living, breathing document as Justices Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer would have us believe. The Constitution was designed to be a foundation for the preservation of freedom and our liberal democracy. The Constitution can change by the amendment process, but its core principles are universal and applicable to all of humanity. As the Founding Fathers stated, "we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal..." Textualism is not merely an ideology, rather it should be a necessity and prerequisite for any Supreme Court judge.

The spirit of the law is indeterminable by courts. The legislature can only indicate the rationale and spirit of laws by the language used in the statutes themselves. Legislative history can be a guide, but should never be the authority for deciding cases, as any first year law student can tell you.

If the Democrats are going to oppose Alito, they are going to have to tell the American people that they are in favor of activist judges, subversion of the legislature by the judiciary, and in opposition to the historical role of the courts. Article I section 1 of the Constitution states, "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." Thus, the judiciary is never to make law, but only to interpret it.

We need to remember that democracy is not designed for efficiency. Striking down a law as unconstitutional is within the power of the judiciary, but it should then be the mandate of the legislature to re—write that law so that it conforms to the Constitution. The courts are not to read beyond the actual text of statutes to impose what they believe the law should be.

I believe Sam Alito can be trusted to observe the rightful place of judges in our system. His record indicates that he will not impose his own will, but will act in conformity with the Constitution to uphold the rights of Americans that are, as the framers stated, self evident to all of humanity.

Jonathan D. Strong, Esq. publishes The Strong Conservative