The Gathering Storm

It has happened. Sandra Day O'Connor has retired from the Supreme Court, leaving a vacancy to be filled, and a battle to be fought.

Normally, I would be thrilled that the swing vote in a divided court had stepped down. I would probably be excited about the possibility of the majority confirming a nominee who would uphold the Constitution.

Not right now. From where I'm standing, I see only two viable options for replacing Ms. O'Connor, and neither are as desirable as the intended operation of our democratic republic.

In Scenario One, Bush makes me proud by appointing a nominee who would interpret the Constitution as it was written, rather than one who would interpret the Constitution as a "growing, changing document." This, however, would require appointing a social conservative. Unfortunately, the democratic nomination of a judge whose views represent the majority has been met in recent years with undemocratic filibusters by the obstructionist minority. Why would this nomination be any different?

Oh, but wait! The Senate Democrats and Republicans came to an agreement about filibusters! Now Democrats will only use the filibuster in "extraordinary circumstances!"

Yeah, sure. And about seven days after they came to that agreement, the Dems filibustered again. If they can't win the vote, then they just stop the vote, and this will happen over and over and over again until the Senate Republicans work up the backbone to change the Senate rules regarding the filibuster.

Representative democracy requires that there be an actual VOTE on laws and nominations. With the Dems telling us that they will only allow a vote if they can win it, our nation's starting to look more like an oligarchy that you'd find in, say, Iran. You know, one of those dictatorships that wants everyone to think it's a democracy, so the leader holds token elections in which there is little or no viable opposition? Sounds like a Democrat's dream.

Obviously, the prospect of a seat on the Supreme Court being vacant during a drawn-out Senate battle is far from appealing. This is, however, the more desirable option. Here's why:

In Scenario Two, Bush falters and chooses a nominee who would not be considered an "extraordinary circumstance" by Senate Democrats. Sounds like that would be much smoother doesn't it? Sure it does, but to paraphrase Mark Levin, "anything short of nominating Ted Kennedy to the SCOTUS would be considered an 'extraordinary circumstance.'" It's a sad fact, but the Democrats' views are so out of proportion that any nomination other than that of an ultra-liberal Democrat is seen as a crisis that must be averted by any means necessary (whether democratic or not).

And so, I hope for scenario one. I hope for a strong, conservative nominee, and yes, I even hope for a filibuster. Why? Because it would bring out the Democrats' true colors. It would prove to the entire nation that the Left is willing to hinder the processes of democracy at every level until they get their way. It would show once again that the will of the people is irrelevant in the minds of the Democrats, and that they would rather have an incomplete judiciary than a judge who disagrees with them on the Supreme Court.

I hope for a Battle Royal that resolves this issue once and for all. I mean a knock-down, drag-out. Yes, it would be nice if the Senate Democrats would just allow an up or down vote on whomever Bush appoints, but I just don't see that happening. I guess the democratic process is just too old-fashioned for the Progressives.