Hiether and Yon

A CODA ON THE APPOINTMENT OF THE JUDICIARY

The "Dems" have done a great job, both in the majority and minority, of stopping President Bush's judicial appointments. This is true especially in the levels of appointment below the Supreme Court.

The tactic of using the artificial filibuster has gone unchallenged. I say artificial because it is a mere threat - it seldom if ever makes it to an actual action of such.
The only reason that I can think of for the Republican's while in the majority not to challenge would be a fear that they would soon be back in the minority and need the tactic themselves. I remember as a kid on the school yard, two kids in an altercation and one drawing a line with his foot with the warning "Don't step over this
line". It's a case of put up or shut up. The Republicans shut up.

Also during the Senate "inquisitions" on Roberts and Alito the term "original intent" was often thrown out. I want to make some of my own observations and opinions - of which I have many- known. First, when one writes something down isn't this his or her original intent? If it wasn't why would you write it. Obviously the Constitution was a consensus, often the result of compromise, of the group assembled. However, most of the mover's and shakers of the Constitutional Convention also were prolific writers or were quoted by those like Madison, who were astute and precise note takers. Thus we really do know much of the original intent of the founders. A recent lecturer on the Constitution said that since the founders inserted a method to change the Constitution, that it showed they didn't expect the document as it was to remain inviolate. For those who adopt the idea that the Constitution is a "living document" I would ask the following question. If the founders knew that there would need to be changes over time and they provided a basis for an orderly and democratic method to do so, why has it been so seldom used. Rather than an appointed Supreme Court taking it upon themselves to change it with their opinions, why haven't they thrown it back to the mechanism included by the founders? For the age of the country we have very few amendments.

The simple truth is that liberals want to rewrite the Constitution to suit their on liberal concepts of what the country is, and ought to be. If they want change let them go the amendment route in place. The path was intentionally made difficult so that changes made would be well thought out and significant enough to survive the ordeal. This would limit spur of the moment and changes with limited support. If its faults are so great that amendments won't do it, there is a procedure for a constitutional convention to draft a new one.