A Fusillade Of Demure Rounds

Patrick Ruffini has just one piece of advice: actually treat the looming Battle of Olympus like a (political) war, a synonym for which is "campaign":

Judicial constructionists aren't used to arguing in [ideological/political] terms. We're used to milquetoast descriptors like "faithfully interpret the Constitution" and "judicial activism" which may mean something to legal scholars and credentializing activists, but mean little if anything to the average voter. Now that we're moving into the Majors, that communications strategy needs to change - and fast.

The linchpin of the new strategy is to emphasize outcomes, not process implicit in the terms "activist" or "constructionist." That's difficult for conservatives who argue that policy outcomes shouldn't matter in Court decisions, but ultimately, the best way to defeat outcome-driven jurisprudence is first to expose the left-wing social agenda that drives it. Our argument should not be against a mode of interpreting the Constitution - it should be against radicals who want to impose their left-wing dogma through the back door.

For once, let's argue substance. Let's get at the motivations driving Chuck Schumer and Ted Kennedy and Patrick Leahy. If the Democrats want an ideological war over this Supreme Court nominee, bring it on. It's a war we can win.

Correction - it's a war we could win if not for one, nagging little problem: Senate Republicans.

Seriously, can you imagine any 'Pubbie in the upper chamber saying anything remotely similar to the following?

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 [sodo]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....to conduct further attacks.

Don't get me wrong, if Fristy and the boys (and girls) would get up and hurl the aforementioned missiles right back in the faces of Uncle Teddy and Chucky and Senator Depends and Double-B and the next President of the United States, I would pay through the nose and out my shorts to watch that on pay-per-view. But we're more likely to see Bill Clinton submit to chemical castration and join the priesthood than these purblind cowards jeopardize their delusions of "comity" with a little unvarnished defense of constitutionalism by highlighting what happens when constitutionalism is wantonly abandoned.

I went round and round endlessly last year on whether liberals wanted power too much or conservatives wanted it too little. I think I finally get it now: liberals' powerlust proves lethal to them on Election Day while conservatives' docility is crippling just about everywhen else. The end result is what we see today: Republicans hold the White House and Congress, and Democrats still run the country - predominantly through the Judiciary. And there's no way the latter will ever change precisely because of the former.

I am perfectly willing to be proven wrong about this. Kind of like I'm perfectly willing to be fellated all at once by the most recent dozen Sports Illustrated swimsuit models.

Somehow, I don't think my wife has anything to be concerned about. With my luck, I'll end up with a pinup of Lindsey Graham in a thong.

[HT: B4B]