In another of my arcane, abstruse dissertations on Constitutional law and theory, I will show that the Bush judicial nominees that Senate Democrats filibustered really are the bizarre, insane fringies that needed to be stopped.
.
Let's look at this proposal by Judge Charles W. Pickering, whose ill-fated nomination was withdrawn in 2004:
.
http://www.washtimes.com/co...
.
He proposed this Amendment:
.
"The Constitution and the amendments thereto duly adopted in the future may be changed, modified, amended or added to only by amendment duly adopted as outlined in Article V of the Constitution. Neither the Supreme Court nor the inferior courts will create law, change, modify, amend, or add to the Constitution, but will interpret the Constitution and amendments in accordance with the common understanding of the relevant provision at the time it was adopted. This amendment does not affect the weight to be given prior decisions under the Doctrine of stare decisis."
.
Sounds good...  Or does it?
.
Not only is it dangerous because it essentially tells judges how to think, but it all but prohibits judges from drawing simple logical deductions from the text of the Constitution.  But first things first.
.
The "understanding of the relevant provision at the time it was adopted" would leave many of the rights we take for granted unprotected.  When the First Amendment was adopted, there would be no protection whatsoever for broadcast media, cable media, satellite media, or the Internet, since none of these existed at the time.  The Founders couldn't possibly have had these in mind, so the First Amendment would not protect them.
.
Next, the Founders didn't envision today's plethora of state and federal agencies.  Since the First Amendment only mentions Congress, all of these other state agencies would enjoy unlimited regulatory power, since the Founders were only thinking of restraining Congress back in 1791.
.
Pickering writes, "What brought on this unfortunate fight? The transfer of all the hot button social issues: Partial-birth abortion, abortion for teenagers without parental consent or even parental notification, same-sex "marriage," references to God in the Pledge of Allegiance, at public buildings, ceremonies and institutions, display of the Ten Commandments in public places, rewriting history to delete all references to a religious motivation in the settling and building of America, and hard-core and child pornography -- are being settled in the courts of our land rather than in legislative bodies. "
.
What Pickering -- and his proposed amendment -- are basically saying is that judges not be permitted to draw even simple logical deductions from the Constitution, since doing so would amount to "creating law."
.
Let's explore where this leads.
.
The First Amendment forbids Congress from prohibiting the free exercise of religion.  Now, let's say that Congress, or your state, passes a law requiring parents to enroll their children in government-run schools.
.
You might say "Wait just a rock pickin' minute!  I'm a devout Christian, and I have the right to educate my children in schools of my own religion!"

.

Sorry, no can do.  For a judge to conclude that "free exercise of religion" means "the right to enroll your kids in the school of your choice" would amount to that judge "creating law" -- since the latter conclusion doesn't physically appear in the Constitution.

.
The same applies to any other case in which a judge would look at a broadly written Constitutional right and derive from it a more specific right.  Under Pickering's theory, all that would remain of your First Amendment religious freedoms is the right to kneel before the God of your choice and pray.
.
But wait; there's even more.
.
This further proves Bush to be a bald-faced liar when he claims to seek judges who will "strictly interpret the Constitution."  The Pickering Amendment would require almost the opposite: it would require judges to double as historians and reach outside the Constitution and into the oftentimes debatable issues of American history to divine the proper application of a passage of the Constitution.
.
Strict constructionism, this isn't.  It's very much the opposite of Bush's stated claim for what he wants in a federal judge.
.
Senate Democrats were entirely justified in blocking the nominations of nuts like Pickering.  Unlike what the negligent media have neglected to tell you, Senate Democrats were blocking judicial nominees who would essentially reduce the Constitution to zero.
.
While you're kneeling to the God of your choice, you'd be wise to include a heartfelt prayer of thanks to Senate Democrats for shielding your most basic Constitutional protections from total destruction by the judicial nominees that Bush has gone out of his way to nominate.
.