David Souter has always been a massive disappointment for people who believe in adherence to the Constitution; not even “strict” adherence, just adherence. He did not have much of a track record when New Hampshire’s John Sununu recommended him to President Bush (41) as a nominee and Souter ultimately proved to be a reliable liberal vote on the court. Though Justice Souter has made scores of bad decisions his worst offense against the US Constitution would likely be siding with the majority in the reprehensible Kelo v. New London, where he and the liberal bloc ruled that New London, CT, could seize a waterfront neighborhood and redevelop it simply because it would raise more in tax revenues. That was an astounding blow to historical property rights and rightly earned him a place in American history as a judicial statist. In a funny twist, some unhappy Americans responded by attempting to start a similar foreclosure on Mr Souter’s New Hampshire house; they were unsuccessful.
However, as bad as Souter is, Bill Ayers’ buddy in the White House is likely to appoint someone who will make Mr Souter look like a center-to-right conservative. The fact of the matter is that the Democrat Party’s view of the proper role of the judiciary at all levels is that they can and should be social engineers, crafting legislation from the bench. This clear violation of the US Constitution’s brilliant separation of powers is what the Left euphemistically calls “The Living Document” view of the Constitution. Though it may sound nice, evoking mental images straight out of the Bambi cartoon, the fact of the matter is that the Living Document Constitution is no Constitution at all.
Don’t get me wrong. The Constitution is indeed a living document but that has nothing to do with the corrupt approach taken by the left. There is an amendment process that allows us to make modifications to the US Constitution and we have done so 27 times. The problem for the social engineers on the left is that it is difficult and time consuming, ensuring a lot of time for open debate, just as the founding fathers intended. The egregiously intellectually dishonest “Living Document” approach allows the court to change their own rules, crossing over into the Constitutional powers delegated to the legislative branch, thereby permitting judges to override the democratic process on ideological issues.
President Obama and his junta most certainly believe in this incredibly dangerous view of the US Constitution. Although I do agree with those who say that the Sentate confirmation process should not be about specific likely court cases (e.g. abortion) but should instead be about the nominee’s legal qualifications, I do think that a potential justice’s view of the proper role of the judiciary with respect to the Living Document philosphy is something that should be thoroughly discussed and a justice who agrees with this no-constitution-at-all approach is not qualified to sit on the nation’s highest court.