And the Nominees Are…..

The President has narrowed down his list of contenders for the Supreme Court vacancy.  While we knew President Obama wouldn’t even consider someone with a pro-life or conservative record, we also knew that his rapidly declining approval rating should have stopped him from considering anyone too radical.  Front runners Garland Merrick and Elena Kegan are exactly what we expected.  They are both pro-choice candidates who lean to the left, but neither one appears to carry any serious baggage.   Justice Stevens was pretty liberal himself so their philosophies alone won’t change the dynamic of the court too much.   That isn’t to say that there is no cause for concern.  The President has made it clear that he favors a “living document” view of the Constitution.  Before anyone is confirmed to the bench, they need to be rigorously questioned as to whether or not they intend on using this approach.  When the collectivists’ world view is combined with a belief that the Bill of Rights is somehow meant to be interpreted subjectively, we have every reason to fear the loss of those rights.   The Supreme Court was designed to protect individual freedoms such as; the free excercise of religion, free speech, and the right to life as outlined in the Constitution.  When the members of the Court replace these values with “social justice,” green living, freedom from religion, and the zero-growth population movement, we are headed for big trouble.  While I find the possibility of a more “empathetic” court deeply disturbing, this also is exactly what I expected to see.  There is however, an aspect of the President’s candidates list that has caught me completely off guard.   What I can’t quite get my head around, is his consideration of several candidates who appear to be not only hard-line leftists, but downright incompetents in the jobs they currently hold.  I’m talking about people who have been absolute, stunning, failures, in the game of life.   Why in the world would a politician so plagued by controversy stick his neck out for these people?  Is it because he really wants one of these candidates on the court despite any political fallout?  Does he really place that much confidence in their abilities?  Or is it just another feint by the politically savvy Team Obama?

I have selected three of, what I believe, to be the most ridiculous names on the nominee list.  After looking at their “qualifications,”  I beg that you ask yourself, “Could this really be a legitimate choice or am I missing something?”

Diane Wood

I think most of us would agree that the most important quality for a judge to possess is an ability to make decisions which are free from political bias.  So naturally, the President is considering a woman who spent time working as an activist for two of the most far-left groups in America, Planned Parenthood and the National Organization for Women (NOW).  In fact she still listed herself as a member of those groups when she was nominated to the Seventh Circuit.  Oddly enough, when a case in which NOW accused pro-life demonstrators of violating RICO laws by intimidating abortion seekers came across her desk, she saw no conflict of interest and did not recuse herself.  She ruled in favor of NOW, but the Supreme Court overturned the decision.  The ruling stated that the extortion laws of RICO did not apply to this case since no one had attempted to gain payment or property.  Although the court declared that no crime had taken place, Wood chose to keep the injunction against the protestors in place.  The case then had to be sent back to the Supreme Court where the Justices unanimously voted to throw out the injunction.  The final written opinion expressed the Justices agitation with Wood.  It spelled out in no uncertain terms that a judge could not permit a group of citizens to be punished for a non-existent crime.   Sounds like we’re dealing with a brilliant legal scholar doesn’t it?  And her activism doesn’t end there.  She has also voted (both times in dissent) to strike down a state’s right to ban partial-birth abortion and to overturn parental notification laws for minors seeking abortions.  So, to sum up: 1.  She was an activist for two radical organizations.  2. She doesn’t seem to have left the activism behind.  3. She was under the impression that protesting and committing extortion were the same thing.  4. She ignored a direct ruling by the Supreme Court.  5. She wasn’t aware that a person cannot be punished by the courts without being convicted of a crime.  And we’re suppose to believe that she should sit on the highest court in the land?

Jennifer Granholm

She has been the governor of Michigan since 2003.  I’ll let that sink in for a moment.  Michigan.  Few states can claim to have undergone the hardships that have plagued Michigan in the last few years.  Under her leadership, unemployment went from 6.8% to 15.3% at the end of 2009.  The state ranks 49th out of 50 in retaining young adults.  To cope with an out of control budget, she has raised income taxes and created a host of “service taxes” on various business activities.  In response to a struggling economy, she passed a Renewable Portfolio Standard.  This requires that by 2015 10% of the state’s energy would come from so-called green sources, and 25% by 2025.   Sounds good until you realize that this actually means cash-strapped residents will have to pay much higher energy costs for day-to-day living, and eventually have to rely on technology that either does not exist or is not readily available.  Then there is the city of Detroit.  Do I even have to say anything?  To top it off, with an approval rating that hovers in the low 30′s, she is one of the least popular governors in the country.  I’m not sure exactly which part of this stellar resumé inspires the President’s confidence.   Remember, this nomination comes from a guy who thought Sarah Palin was too inexperienced!

Janet Napolitano Ms. Napolitano rose to prominence as the attorney for Anita Hill.  A woman who claimed to have been sexually harassed by Clarence Thomas for three years (during which time she did not choose to find another job), and was believed by just about nobody.  After serving as governor of Arizona, she was appointed to the post of Secretary of Homeland Security in 2008.  In the past two years, she has improved our security with innovative ideas like; changing the word terrorism to “man-caused disasters,” issuing a directive to watch out for “right-wing” extremists including disgruntled veterans and pro-life evangelicals, and devoting her time in office to stamping out “the politics of fear.”  I feel safer already!  And let’s not forget about the time “the system worked” to bring down the underwear bomber.  You know, that time when the system completely failed and a civilian had to tackle a terrorist.  I’m sorry, had to tackle a potential man-caused disasterist.  When it was brought to her attention that civilians who did not receive a paycheck from the Department of Homeland Security were not actually part of the “system” and probably shouldn’t be relied upon to stop murderers, she proposed tougher security measures.  No, we won’t be taking an extra look at people named Mohammed, who happen to flying out of a man-caused disaster training hub, and are wearing traditional Muslim garb, and have prompted their own family members to report them as potential mass murderers.  Instead, airport security will take nude body scans (which wouldn’t have shown the liquid explosives anyways) of everyone including grandma. So clearly, the next natural step in her career would be a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.

So what is the President playing at here?  Maybe he doesn’t care if he upsets the American voters.  That certainly seemed to be the case with ObamCare and now possible Cap and Trade and amnesty legislation.  But he must know that these candidates don’t stand a chance of getting through the confirmation process.  So why throw out these names at all?  One possibility is that whoever the final choice is, they will seem brilliant by comparison.  Most people will probably think to themselves, “Well, at least it’s not Napolitano!”  And hopefully, that’s all this is.  However, I have a sneaking suspicion that there could be something else here.  Think back to the appointments of world-class lunatics Cass Sunstein, John Holdren, and Van Jones to regulatory positions (don’t forget, we can’t call them “czars” anymore).  The President waited until the last possible moment to announce their selection, and they were already in office before anyone had time to really do some digging into their past.  One has to wonder if this list of ridiculous candidates is just something to keep us busy until the actual nominee is unveiled.  Perhaps, it will be one of the less recognizable names already on the list, but make no mistake, the selection has already been made.  Barack Obama  knew well before he was sworn into office that he would one day be charged with making this appointment.   He has known for sometime exactly who the nominee will be.  The list is just a formality.  Let’s hope that this whole waiting game is equally meaningless and not an indication of something more sinister.  All we can do now is wait and see.   Ugh…. is it 2012 yet?