Framing the Supreme Court Nominee Debate

Excellent post by Patrick Ruffini (HT: The Corner on National Review Online) on how the debate over the President's upcoming Supreme Court Nominee(s) will likely be framed. The Democrats have already begun in their typical style of horrified doomsday predictions: Back alley abortions! Rogue police!! The return of segregation!!!

The Republicans, meanwhile, talk about Supreme Court issues that really resonate with the regular folks: Faithful interpretation of the constitution. Judicial activism. The judge's qualifications. Yawn....

Ruffini spells out that Republicans had better learn what works, if they want to get public opinion on their side and start the pressure on the Senators to confirm the President's nominee(s). Republicans need to show the outcome of sending "moderate" or "compromise" nominees to the Court. Here's what he recommends:

What kind of America do Democrats want by opposing President Bush's judicial nominee? The kind that the judges they prefer are trying to make for us:

• An America where your children can't pledge allegiance to the United States of America, Under God (Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow)
• An America where gay marriage is imposed by judicial fiat (Goodridge v. Department of Public Health), and if the people of your state say no, they are silenced (Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning)
• An America where wealthy developers can take away your home (Kelo v. City of New London)
• A Banana Republic where elections can be manipulated after the fact to produce the desired outcome (Bush v. Gore; the Dino Rossi litigation)
• An America where the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay are more likely to be set free, possibly to conduct further attacks.

How do we "strict constructionists" frame our "agenda?" As an anti-agenda. As one that opposes the imposition of any particular worldview through the Courts. As a simple sentiment, animated by faith in the body politic, and borne of 229 years of democracy in America:

Let the people decide.

Indeed. What's important to the American people is not whether 200 years of precedent is or is not followed in the Senate during the confirmation process. What's important is the kind of America the Supreme Court will make for us as a result of the President's choices.

I pray that President Bush will keep his campaign promise to nominate people in the mold of Thomas and Scalia, and I pray that the American people will hold the Senate Democrats' feet to the fire until those nominees are confirmed.