September 06, 2006

Why Judicial Nominations Are Important, Reason 1,284: National Security

Well, perhaps there aren’t as many reasons as that, and certainly the safety of Americans wouldn’t be that far down the list even if there were that many, however, too often the importance of having restrained judges with a fidelity to the US Constitution on the federal bench is only couched in terms of social issues (abortion, gay marriage, et al). Not that those issues aren’t extremely important, but as Judge Anne Diggs Taylor much maligned decision has recently showed us, there are other concerns at stake in this fight.

In a statement today, Senator Rick Santorum, who has shown leadership on both issues, makes the connection between national security and judges.

Here is part of the statment:

"It is about time that we get back to confirming judges and I am glad to see that our Leader is putting this issue back on the Senate’s agenda. . . . Just last month, we saw what can happen when an ideologically-driven activist judge attempts to create national security policy. Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, a federal district judge in Michigan appointed by President Carter in 1979, ruled that the Terrorist Surveillance Program was unconstitutional. . . . While some on the other side of the aisle have rejoiced in this decision, this opinion has been attacked from both ends of the political spectrum. The Washington Post, in an editorial on August 18th, noted that the decision "is neither careful nor scholarly, and it is hard-hitting only in the sense that a bludgeon is hard-hitting." . . . In contrast to Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, both of President Bush’s nominees to the Supreme Court, Justices Roberts and Alito, understand that it is not the role of the judicial branch to make policy...Alito and Roberts have it right. It is not the role of a judge to seek to replace the legislature or the President...with his or her own views. It is the role of a judge to apply the law..."

Also see Curt Levey’s post on Confirm Them.