Judicial War of Worlds Begins
Ventura Star, July 4, 2005
By Terry Paulson, PhD

I fear the real war of the worlds is about to take place in Washington, DC. After 24 years of service on the United States Supreme Court, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor announced her decision to resign her position on the Court. Appointed by Ronald Reagan, O'Connor was the first woman appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court and developed a reputation of being the moderate who would often cast the deciding vote in some of the most controversial Supreme Court decisions. For example, in 1992 O'Connor was the deciding vote in upholding the 1973 decision legalizing abortions. Her resignation presents a challenging opportunity to President Bush to appoint a justice who may very well tip the balance on the court. Without question, President Bush's nomination of her replacement will likely have a major role in the legal direction our nation takes for generations to come.

President Bush has thanked Justice O'Connor for her service and promised to make a prompt and thoughtful appointment before the Supreme Court. He has called for civil consideration of his appointment and a fair vote on his appointment before the court goes back into session in October. The Democrats have already called for a "consensus candidate" but are preparing for all out war to derail any conservative Bush appointment.

With the brutal fight over Appeals Court appointments and the potentially immanent retirement of Chief Justice William Rhenquist, expect to see a never-ending stream of personal attacks on any conservative judge appointed, no matter how qualified the judge. The stakes are high. Without a president and legislative majority, they have looked to the courts to make decisions they were unable to legislate. The courts have been the Democrat's Fort Apache-their last bastion of defense for their liberal agenda.

President Bill Clinton was able to get his liberal Supreme Court nominees through the appointment process without facing a filibuster or demeaning attacks on his appointments. His most difficult appointment took only 58 days from appointment to approval. All appointments deserve a robust discussion on their qualifications and their track record in upholding the Constitution no matter what their personal views. But after that due diligence, it is time that the elected president be given the chance of a fair up and down vote on his nominee. No doubt, this appointment will test the resolve of the group of 14 senators who have agreed to allow the consideration of all appointments except for "extraordinary reasons." Unfortunately, to most Democrats, any strict constructionist appointment to replace O'Connor will be seen as an extreme conservative.

The Democrats labeled Senator Frist's call for putting an end to the use of filibusters as the "nuclear option." Such changes in Senate rules are mild compared to past historical attempts to reshape our courts! Thomas Jefferson, in response to out-of-control courts, used the Judiciary Act of 1802 and the court's failure to meet the "good behavior" test of the Constitution to disestablish a majority of the existing federal circuit judges. President Andrew Jackson responded to Supreme Court activism by saying, "John Marshall has made his decision; let him now enforce it if he can." Lincoln's campaign was empowered by the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision that extended slavery. During the Civil War, Lincoln used his role of commander-in-chief to defend his failure to obey the Court. If Republicans were into "nuclear options," Bush might very well act against the outrageous Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals whose rulings are consistently out of step with American values and are routinely reversed by the Supreme Court. With the checks and balances established in the Constitution, President Bush could follow Jefferson's lead and eliminate their judgeships and leave them with no court to serve on.

Thankfully that will not happen. There will be plenty of name calling, character assassination, ranting and raving in the months ahead, and it may very well come down to Senator Frist calling once again to end the filibuster on judicial appointments and force an up and down vote on these all-important Supreme Court appointments. If Democrats feel the Bush appointments are out of the mainstream, they should remember how Republicans felt after the power grab of the Warren Court that routinely made radical judgments without precedent! Liberal judges today use the precedent of such radical courts and even use the decisions of foreign legal systems to make changes out of step with the majority of Americans. One of the reasons Republicans won the last election big time was the fear of facing the appointment of more liberal judges by Kerry. The Democrats lost the election and continue to show contempt for majority rule. It's time for Republicans to act like the winners they are and to appoint judges who will help return judicial restraint to our court system. To the losers it feels like a disaster, but it is democracy in action. We make political choices, and those choices have consequences. That's what makes winning elections so important.

Dr. Terry Paulson is a psychologist, speaker and author of The Dinner: The Political Conversation Your Mother Told You Never to Have

—May we never forget how truly blessed we are!