Why Put Another Lawyer on the Supreme Court?

Now that conservatives have torn themselves apart over Harriet Miers, and the President has nominated Alito, it may be time to examine the fundamental flaws in conventional mindsets that predictably pulls nominees from the legal profession every time. This practice reveals a degree of elitism that illuminates the great distance we have moved away from original constitutional intent.

First and foremost, the Constitution was never intended to be high-brow legal dissertation. It was, and still is, a document written in fairly common language and understandable to the common man. There are fairly simple concepts detailed within, recognizing certain God-given rights enjoyed by all men, and framing the appropriate relationship between the people and government. There is nothing about the document that is esoteric. It is exactly what it is. It certainly does not take a lawyer to understand the meaning.

Why then, does every Supreme Court nominee have to be a lawyer? The Constitution does not require a Supreme Court judge to have spent years pursuing a law degree, or endless hours in retentive legal pursuits at some high-powered law firm, to be a member of the Supreme Court. There are no specific requirements at all. In fact, at the time of the Constitution's drafting, many lawyers were self-taught men, who may have studied under another lawyer, but who likely did not have formal legal education. In any event, wisdom and common sense are not exclusive to lawyers, and today that profession often attracts individuals with neither. Lawyers also have the unfortunate tendency to become obsessed with legal precedent and the writings of other lawyers and judges, and in this world the convoluted examination of fairly simple concepts becomes an end unto itself. Using strict Constitutional principles, however, allows quick disposition of lower court precedents, and even previously flawed Supreme Court decisions: If precedent is not based on what can be specifically read in the document, the decision is wrong, and must be rejected as unconstitutional. Examples of this are the mythical right to abortion, prohibition of school prayer, and any gun control law ever applied to a law-abiding citizen.

Interpreting the Constitution requires only one skill: The ability to read. Believing that only lawyers and judges can understand our great founding document is to deny the brilliant accessibility intended by those who wrote it in the first place.

With Weakness, Victory Will Be Elusive

Apparently, an American psychological operations unit in Afghanistan first killed, then burned the bodies of several Taliban terrorists last month. In video shot by an Australian photojournalist traveling with the unit, blackened corpses smoke in the background as American soldiers read taunting messages into a radio, challenging the remaining terrorists to show themselves and fight. The messages accuse the Taliban of being "cowardly dogs" and acting like women, and of being a "disgrace to the Muslim religion". That last insult is interesting, however, in that the Taliban were doing exactly as Islam commands: kill infidels, whenever and wherever they can find them. But that discussion is for another time.

Of course, the predictable outrage has begun, with the Pentagon promising that anyone involved in the alleged misconduct, or who violated the tenets of the Geneva Convention, would be held "appropriately accountable". Get ready for another round of Abu Ghraib-like coverage from the old stream media, and non-stop cycling of the video on CNN.

The reaction to this incident is indicative of how far away from resolute determination we, as a nation, have drifted since World War II. In those days, no one raised an eye brow when hundreds of living Japanese soldiers were incinerated by flame throwers during the battles of Tarawa and Iwo Jima, or when soldiers engaged in the common practice of repeatedly shooting dead enemy they encountered to make sure the enemy was truly dead. Americans watched this as well, not on video but on film shot by military photographers and shown in theatres as a news reel prior to the Saturday night matinee. I was not there, but I am confident that no one in the audience felt the least bit sympathetic for those Japanese soldiers, or questioned whether the American soldiers were engaged in enemy "desecration", as charged in this latest incident. That is because everyone knew the Japanese were committing atrocities exponentially worse against our soldiers, on a regular basis. Americans also instinctively knew that victory against such an enemy, battle-hardened and seemingly fearless of death, required cold-blooded resolve. Fighting a "civilized" war against such an enemy, which did not surrender until after nearly half a million civilians were destroyed by nuclear weapons, would have led to defeat.

The Islamist enemy we fight today is equally determined as the Japanese in WWII, and like the Japanese are motivated by nationalism and religious fervor. They do not recognize any rules of war, other than those written in the Koran and Hadith, and a thousand years of bloody imperialism and murder. They have but one goal: the establishment of an Arab and worldwide caliphate, which excludes all other religions, and subjugates all other peoples as merely slaves of the Islamic state. They cannot be reasoned with, or dissuaded, or distracted from their God-driven mission. This enemy rejects mercy as weakness, and understands and respects only force and power. The only way to stop them is to kill every last one of them, and extending the Geneva Convention to such terrorists was the first mistake of this war. It may be the reason we lose.

Whether these terrorists were killed in combat, or lined up against a wall and shot on the spot, should make no difference to anyone who wants to win this war, and it certainly makes no difference to the Islamists who hate us regardless. They will never be tempered by our mercy, nor moved by our kindness, and will only use our humanity against us at every opportunity. If a few burned Taliban corpses drew more terrorists into the gunsights of our military, then the psy-ops soldiers who did this should be given medals, not reprimands. Those that voice sympathy demonstrate a weakness of resolve, and provide aid and comfort to an enemy that would never have been tolerated 60 years ago.

After all, this is a war for our survival, no less dangerous to our continued existence as a nation than during WWII. Toughen up, America. Or at least, keep your weakness to your self and let those with greater fortitude fight the battle unhindered.

Dream On, Democrats.

With hysterical glee, Democrats believe they smell blood around the Bush Administration and Republicans in general. Admittedly, at first glance, the situation does appear bleak for the Republicans: dwindling support for the Iraq war, Tom Delay's indictment and arrest, Bill Frist's insider trading investigation, the Harriet Miers rupture, and polls that show a generic vote would favor Democrats over Republicans in 2006 by 11%. Oh, to be a Democrat, bolstered by such news after years of humiliating defeat at the polls!

Unfortunately for Democrats, none of this seems to be rubbing off in their favor. According to a recent national poll, only 32% of Americans have a favorable opinion of the Democratic Party. Hardly the resounding paradyme shift that the Dem's are counting on to take back the House and Senate next year, or win the White House a couple years later. But desperate people often cling to desperate hopes.

Enter Hillary Clinton.

Many Democrats, especially the Hollywood leftists, believe Clinton is the last, best hope for presidential success in 2008. Even Republicans like Dick Morris, who personally can't stand Hillary, predict that she has a good chance of winning, especially if there is no perceptible improvement in the Iraq situation and if Republicans do not offer up an equally well-known candidate. But the fact that many Democrats see Clinton as the best they've got, or at least the only really viable choice, is indicative of how desperate and empty the party has become.

Nevertheless, the political triangulation around Hillary is astounding, and typically Clintonian. With psychophantic predictability, the old-stream media and Hollywood are pulling out the stops to promote her. This is certainly because she is immensely popular with the chablis-sipping leftist elite, and possibly because there are some in the party who pragmatically recognize the dearth of potential candidates even slightly palatable to the wide American electorate. In any event, her support among these elites is undeniably widespread. Democratic strategist and commentator Susan Estrich, who just a couple years ago predicted that Hillary could never win the presidency because she was America's most divisive politician, is now pimping Clinton as the probable next president. Several former Clinton aides, including the recently disgraced Sandy Berger, have signed up to provide "technical assistance" to ABC TV's Tuesday night fantasy "Commander-in-Chief". The New York Daily News reports that Clinton's operatives see the the show as a barometer of how Hillary might fare in 2008. These socially and politically insular Democrats, especially in Hollywood and New York City, honestly believe that Clinton has widespread appeal and popularity. And why not? Everybody they know loves her.

The truth may not be so gilded, or as optimistic. In fact, there are signs emerging that point to a rough road for Clinton, even among members of her own party. This no more true than among the rabid Bush-hating anti-Iraq War factions, which have emerged as a mainstream component of an ever left-drifting party, not to mention the biggest source of Democratic fundraising in recent memory. It is from here, among groups like MoveOn.org, Code Pink and Cindy Sheehan supporters, that the real power base in the party steadily grows. These groups have made it clear that Clinton's refusal to dramatically condemn the war in Iraq, or call for the return of American troops immediately, will cost her support, at least in the short term. Shrewd politicians like Ted Kennedy, who has effectively aligned himself with the more vocal Bush-hating groups, both in his associations and his words, recognizes this dynamic. That may explain why he recently said he will not support Clinton in 2008, in the likely event John Kerry runs again. Kennedy may be a slurring, womanizing, cowardly drunk, but he is not stupid: he knows that it is Kerry, not Hillary, who is more likely to benefit from the support of the angry left and their piles of money. After all, Kerry was able to do this in 2004. Even Cindy Sheehan, MoveOn.org's resident lackey, is urging fellow Democrats not to support "pro-war" Hillary, accusing her of "sounding like Rush Limbaugh". Ouch.

But Estrich says that Hillary has the benefit of being well-liked among Democrats, like her husband Bill, and unlike Al Gore and John Kerry. However, in the same article two years ago, she said that many women, including Democratic women, don't like her at all, and that the more Democrats talked up Hillary, the more money flowed into the coffers of the Republican Party. Estrich has obviously concluded that any Democrat prospect, even one she has personally identified as unable to appeal to a broad range of voters, is better than no Democrat at all. And there lies the problem for Estrich and the rest of her party.

Most Republican strategists believe that a Hillary presidential run will render results more illustrative of Estrich's former predictions, i.e. a boon for Republican fundraisers and crushing defeat for Democrats. Hillary would certainly ignite a huge bon-fire of repellent disgust beneath the Republican base. If the Republicans nominate Condi Rice, who by many accounts would eat Hillary alive in a head-to-head intellectual matchup, and with Hillary's base confined to elites, the Democrats might just end up wishing they had run John Kerry again.

At least, then, the humiliating Democratic defeat would not come as a total surprise.