Liberal Antics and the Alito Confirmation

With John Roberts safely installed as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the Harriet Miers debacle fading into the past, most Americans are not presently focused on the upcoming confirmation battle for Samuel Alito. But a mere glance at other news stories of the day suggests that perhaps they should be. Something far greater is at stake in his confirmation than many people realize.

Several legal battles unfolding throughout the nation, while at present not directly tied to the Supreme Court, nonetheless provide evidence of a major breakdown in the nation's legal system. Right or wrong, the precedent has been established by which the Supreme Court is widely assumed to be the final arbiter of such cases.

Thus, if true justice is ever to be re—established in America, the ultimate responsibility will rest upon the nine justices of the Supreme Court. Those on the left with a clear and vested interest in maintaining the judicial status quo, have no intention of allowing the system to revert to its former, constitutionally limited role. Current news items involving the machinations of the legal system, albeit at lower levels, should be sufficient to make this case in the minds of the American people.

In Florida, radio talk show giant Rush Limbaugh has just won a major court victory in an ongoing battle against the state's inarguably politically—motivated Democrat State Attorney, Barry Krischer. According to a decision handed down on Monday by District Court Judge David Crow, Limbaugh's medical records are indeed a matter of confidentiality between himself and his doctor.

Fishing expeditions by state prosecutors are not permitted as a means of finding evidence of ostensible wrongdoing, categorized by the proescutor in this case as 'doctor shopping' by Limbaugh. Yet the situation begs the question of just how a prosecution of this sort could have advanced as far as it did. Certainly, the common citizen should be protected from this sort of personal attack.

Meanwhile in Texas, obvious efforts at 'grand jury shopping' by Travis County Prosecutor Ronnie Earle, in hopes of railroading Republican Congressman Tom Delay, are themselves falling apart. After a half—dozen attempts to find a grand jury that would indict Delay for something... anything, Earle finally succeeded. Delay was charged with 'Conspiracy to Violate Texas Election Code' and 'Money Laundering.'

Judge Pat Priest has now dismissed the conspiracy charge, essentially contending that its imposition on the Congressman was, from the beginning, bogus. Nevertheless, Delay lingers under indictment for the remaining charge.

Once again, justice and ethics play no part in this unfolding melodrama. Instead, the entire situation proves that Earle represents not a legal system dedicated to public integrity, but rather one that has degenerated into a weapon, one that those with power can wield against their political opponents.

And of course, at this festive season of the year, news stories abound in which the Christian foundations of the Christmas Holiday (a virtual redundancy in terms) are being expunged from public discourse. Americans are once again reminded of those looming threats to their freedom and heritage posed by such organizations as the ACLU, as it pursues nothing less than to suppress, and eventually criminalize 'politically incorrect' expressions and speech.

In the midst of such tempests, Samuel Alito may represent a return to saner and more traditional jurisprudence. Like Roberts, his judicial philosophy is one of deference to the Constitution as an absolute standard. And as such, he represents the worst nightmares of liberals who hope to see their agenda set in concrete by a high court that recognizes no constitutional limits to its power.

Senator Russ Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat, has not ruled out a filibuster of Alito. And Pennsylvania 'Republican' Arlen Specter has expressed similar sentiments in past weeks, specifically pointing to the possibility that Alito might not regard abortion as sacrosanct in American law.

In truth, the question that liberal Senators would like to ask Alito (though none dare do so publicly) is, if confirmed by the Senate, whether his ultimate loyalty would be to the United States Constitution, or to Roe v. Wade.

While Alito's critics are ostensibly concerned about the ongoing legality of abortion, in reality they fear far more. If his belief in the Constitution is as steadfast as present signs indicate, much of the liberal agenda will henceforth be relegated to the ballot box, where it ever after stands no chance of implementation. A compliant Supreme Court is liberalism's best hope for continued political dominance.

Christopher G.  Adamo is a frequent contributor.

With John Roberts safely installed as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the Harriet Miers debacle fading into the past, most Americans are not presently focused on the upcoming confirmation battle for Samuel Alito. But a mere glance at other news stories of the day suggests that perhaps they should be. Something far greater is at stake in his confirmation than many people realize.

Several legal battles unfolding throughout the nation, while at present not directly tied to the Supreme Court, nonetheless provide evidence of a major breakdown in the nation's legal system. Right or wrong, the precedent has been established by which the Supreme Court is widely assumed to be the final arbiter of such cases.

Thus, if true justice is ever to be re—established in America, the ultimate responsibility will rest upon the nine justices of the Supreme Court. Those on the left with a clear and vested interest in maintaining the judicial status quo, have no intention of allowing the system to revert to its former, constitutionally limited role. Current news items involving the machinations of the legal system, albeit at lower levels, should be sufficient to make this case in the minds of the American people.

In Florida, radio talk show giant Rush Limbaugh has just won a major court victory in an ongoing battle against the state's inarguably politically—motivated Democrat State Attorney, Barry Krischer. According to a decision handed down on Monday by District Court Judge David Crow, Limbaugh's medical records are indeed a matter of confidentiality between himself and his doctor.

Fishing expeditions by state prosecutors are not permitted as a means of finding evidence of ostensible wrongdoing, categorized by the proescutor in this case as 'doctor shopping' by Limbaugh. Yet the situation begs the question of just how a prosecution of this sort could have advanced as far as it did. Certainly, the common citizen should be protected from this sort of personal attack.

Meanwhile in Texas, obvious efforts at 'grand jury shopping' by Travis County Prosecutor Ronnie Earle, in hopes of railroading Republican Congressman Tom Delay, are themselves falling apart. After a half—dozen attempts to find a grand jury that would indict Delay for something... anything, Earle finally succeeded. Delay was charged with 'Conspiracy to Violate Texas Election Code' and 'Money Laundering.'

Judge Pat Priest has now dismissed the conspiracy charge, essentially contending that its imposition on the Congressman was, from the beginning, bogus. Nevertheless, Delay lingers under indictment for the remaining charge.

Once again, justice and ethics play no part in this unfolding melodrama. Instead, the entire situation proves that Earle represents not a legal system dedicated to public integrity, but rather one that has degenerated into a weapon, one that those with power can wield against their political opponents.

And of course, at this festive season of the year, news stories abound in which the Christian foundations of the Christmas Holiday (a virtual redundancy in terms) are being expunged from public discourse. Americans are once again reminded of those looming threats to their freedom and heritage posed by such organizations as the ACLU, as it pursues nothing less than to suppress, and eventually criminalize 'politically incorrect' expressions and speech.

In the midst of such tempests, Samuel Alito may represent a return to saner and more traditional jurisprudence. Like Roberts, his judicial philosophy is one of deference to the Constitution as an absolute standard. And as such, he represents the worst nightmares of liberals who hope to see their agenda set in concrete by a high court that recognizes no constitutional limits to its power.

Senator Russ Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat, has not ruled out a filibuster of Alito. And Pennsylvania 'Republican' Arlen Specter has expressed similar sentiments in past weeks, specifically pointing to the possibility that Alito might not regard abortion as sacrosanct in American law.

In truth, the question that liberal Senators would like to ask Alito (though none dare do so publicly) is, if confirmed by the Senate, whether his ultimate loyalty would be to the United States Constitution, or to Roe v. Wade.

While Alito's critics are ostensibly concerned about the ongoing legality of abortion, in reality they fear far more. If his belief in the Constitution is as steadfast as present signs indicate, much of the liberal agenda will henceforth be relegated to the ballot box, where it ever after stands no chance of implementation. A compliant Supreme Court is liberalism's best hope for continued political dominance.

Christopher G.  Adamo is a frequent contributor.