We Could Be So Good Together
June 30, 2007
Hopefully, the ruling–and the critical role that Bush-appointed Justices Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts played in the decision–will reaffirm the importance of the Supreme Court in the minds of conservative voters. I’ve been troubled over the past few months by comments on various conservative blogs suggesting that members of the GOP base will bail out on the party if an "insufficiently conservative" candidate wins the GOP nomination next year. As these rulings prove, few things are more important in Presidential elections than the question of who will control the Supreme Court.
While it shouldn’t be the case, the political and legal reality is that the Supreme Court is, for all intents and purposes, a third branch of Congress–and the most powerful branch. We have legalized abortion because of the High Court. It’s easier for a local government entity to take our house via eminent domain because of the Supreme Court. The Founders never intended for the Court to have this much power, but the Court does.
Even if the GOP base has been disillusioned by the Republican Party’s actions during the 2000s, it is of the utmost importance that conservatives work to prevent a Democrat President from controlling the Supreme Court between 2009 and 2013. Keeping the court conservative should be the second biggest priority for conservative voters (the first being the War on Terror). The pro-colorblindness ruling would not have happened without Bush placing Alito and Roberts on the bench. For all the talk about where Bush has been wrong, he’s certainly been right on judges. If the GOP nominee, even an "insufficiently conservative" one, vows (as Bush did) to put strict constructionists on the bench, conservatives must go beyond the extra mile to ensure his victory.
UPDATE: The American Spectator, Weekly Standard, David Limbaugh, Mona Charen, George Will and Power Line on the ruling.
Leave a Reply