President Obama is preparing to nominate his second Justice to fill one of only nine seats on the United States Supreme Court, following the recent retirement of Justice Stevens.
Fortunately, Presidents are not kings.Our Constitution puts a check on their power to fill the Court with any judge they want.The United States Senate holds that power to check.
Unfortunately, that constitutional check – the "advice and consent" of the U.S. Senate under Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution – means little when Senators fail in their duty to examine nominees independently and rigorously.Protecting our Constitution and our freedoms requires Senators to think for themselves, and to say "no" to a President intent on picking jurists who impose their own views from the bench.Senators swear a constitutional oath to protect the Constitution, and that means standing up for the proper role of a judge in our system of limited self-government.
One thing we know: like the first Obama Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, this next nominee will be chosen to implement the Obama judicial philosophy, which is as dangerous to our Constitution and our system of limited self-government as Obamacare is.Indeed, this next Justice’s vote for Obama’s policies may be needed for them to steamroll over the Constitution.
Justice Sotomayor was chosen because she had a long record of ruling based on the Obama judicial philosophy of ruling from the "heart" instead of based on the law:making decisions based on her empathy, and her own personal background, feelings, and politics.This is the exact opposite of what judges are supposed to do under our Constitution.Judges must put aside their own personal views, politics, and preferences so that they can make decisions impartially and based on the law.They are not supposed to tilt the law, as the President and Justice Sotomayor believe, to favor certain groups and constituencies because it feels good to do so.
Every Republican Senator, and every Democratic Senator who is not a captive of the far Left liberal judicial mindset, should vote "no" on judges nominated by President Obama who have a record of inventing rights that are not in the Constitution and ignoring the important ones that are.
That is why I took a clear stand in opposing Sonia Sotomayor when the U.S. Senate voted on her nomination last summer, notwithstanding her impressive personal story.Sotomayor’s statements about "making policy from the bench" and her demonstrated record of failing to uphold the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms and of implementing race-based quotas and preferences were but a few examples that clearly indicated she would not uphold the Constitution.
But my primary opponent, Kelly Ayotte, endorsed Justice Sotomayor, saying that based on her qualifications of "having been a circuit court judge" she "would have approved her."
Now, our opponent in the New Hampshire Senate race, Democratic Congressman Paul Hodes, is happily noting that he and Ayotte "agreed" that Sotomayor "was qualified and her historic nomination was a great addition to the bench."
I disagree.It is not just judicial experience that qualifies someone to sit on our nation’s highest Court, or on any court in America.It is a record of proven faithfulness to the Constitutionand a commitment to judicial restraint.That is the exact opposite of the Obama-Sotomayor liberal judicial activist approach to judging.
Never in our nation’s history has it been more important to resist the liberal power grab for the Supreme Court.We must restore constitutionally limited government, both by asserting constitutional challenges to federal government that has gotten away from the core functions to which it was supposed to be limited under our Constitution, and by saying "no" to judges who would stray from the Constitution.
I am the only candidate for U.S. Senate in New Hampshire who can be trusted to do this.Kelly Ayotte cannot:not only did she support Sotomayor, she administered the Obama "stimulus" spending, and in 2009, she advised our Democratic Governor to engage in a massive taking of $110 million in private property – similar to the infamous 2005 U.S. Supreme Court Kelo decision, which said the government can take citizens’ private homes to expand its tax base – to try to balance the state budget.Multi-millionaire Bill Binnie, who has carefully avoided discussing his position on judges, has a record of supporting liberal Democrats for office like Bill Bradley, Marty Meehan and Martha Fuller Clark.He also fails this essential test of trust.
Thankfully, the New Hampshire Supreme Court rejected the reasoning in the Ayotte legal opinion as unconstitutional.But Americans must seek out U.S. Senators who will stand up for the Constitution and against liberal activist judges before we can stop the Obama and Washington power grab.I will be that U.S. Senator for New Hampshire, and for America.
Ovide Lamontagne is a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate from New Hampshire.His website can be found at www.ovide2010.com