It’s Time To Rethink Judicial “Litmus Tests”

October 13, 2002

by Christopher G. Adamo

Americans are outraged. At least those Americans who think that this country ought to be governed by something more than the passing whims of a dictator, or as is apparently the case in New Jersey, a seven-person panel of dictators. Last week, the New Jersey Supreme Court simply decided that laws governing fair elections need not be enforced, implying instead that somewhere in their state’s constitution must be an inherent right for Democrats to be universally represented on election ballots.

It matters little that no such right exists, or that the Democrat who had been rightfully chosen during the primary was being forced out simply because his burgeoning scandals have rendered victory to be an impossibility. A lawfully selected candidate is being replaced after the deadline in total disregard to the rule of law. It is enough for the “justices” of the New Jersey Supreme Court that the Democrats will pick up the expenses involved in reprinting ballots. But, as of this writing, no suggestions have been made as to who will pick up the tab for Doug Forrester, the Republican candidate, who has wasted an enormous sum of money on ads, materials, and strategies to campaign against an opponent who no longer exists.

Worse yet, the United States Supreme Court, apparently fearing more of the sort of backlash leveled at it in the wake of its decision to shut down the endless Florida recounts in 2000, has chosen not to hear an appeal of the case by the New Jersey Republican Party. Clearly, courts are abandoning their legitimate duty of upholding and preserving the integrity of the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law, and are instead opting to institute edicts on a situation-by-situation basis, as the mood strikes them.

Constitutional limits on the actions and reach of government are being “overturned” or simply ignored at an alarming rate. More ominously, the perception of the Constitution espoused by liberal Democrats, as a “living document” to be invoked or ignored as it best fits their agenda, is rapidly gaining acceptance among the morally rudderless jurists who dominate the bench. Unfortunately, it is fruitless to point fingers of blame at Democrats for this disaster. The majority of judges on both the New Jersey and U.S. Supreme Courts were Republican appointees.

In New Jersey, much could be done to remedy this situation by simply electing a Republican governor for whom the name has some meaning, though such a scenario seems increasingly unlikely. At the U.S. Supreme Court, the problem is much more profound and therefore will require a much greater amount of determination to fight baseless accusations and educate the public if things are ever going to be fixed. For the makeup of the Supreme Court is largely a result of the elimination of worthwhile standards, disparaged as "litmus tests" (as defined by liberals, of course...), when selecting nominees for the Bench.

The primary "litmus test" to which liberals originally objected pertained to abortion. Unfortunately, instead of directly confronting the situation, and making it plain to the American people that no Constitutional right to abortion exists, Republicans have largely been willing to agree with the notion that a prospective jurist cannot be evaluated on the basis of his or her stance on that issue.While it is theoretically possible for a judge to adhere to the Constitutional foundation of law while still condoning abortion, experience has proven otherwise. In reality, it is highly improbable that a jurist might be indifferent to the slaughter of the unborn, but firmly committed to principle regarding some ink on an antiquated piece of parchment.

Once conservatives caved on this all-important premise, liberals pressed relentlessly forward, as they always do. In their predictable pattern of accusing their opposition of the very acts which they commit, liberals now criticize judicial nominees, who merely seek to uphold the law and maintain the integrity of the Constitution, as "activist."

The time has come for conservatives to reassert their case. Any nominee who does not hold the Constitution as paramount, and who doesn’t have a track record to prove it, should be considered absolutely unqualified to sit on the bench regardless of any other legal credentials and despite liberal allegations of “litmus tests.”Unless the commitment to uphold the Constitution is reestablished as an immutable standard by which to screen judges, the country will soon find out that it no longer has a Constitution.

_________________________________________

Christopher G. Adamo is a freelance writer who lives in southeastern Wyoming with his wife and sons. He has been involved in grassroots political activity for many years. Chris was the editor of the Wyoming Christian from 1994 to 1996, and his columns can also been seen at CheyenneNetwork.com.

Send the author an E mail at Adamo@ConservativeTruth.org.

For more of Christopher's articles, visit his archives.