Fighting and Winning the Judges War

The judiciary is the last remaining issue where I am dead-on conservative. For two reasons:

1. A Supreme Court full of Scalias and or Borks, by their very judicial philosophies, can not stand in the way of a libertarian legislative agenda, whereas a Warren/Brennan-style court might;
2. I don't believe in judicial review anyway.

So I agree with Pat Buchanan that the best way to restore democracy, republicanism, and federalism is not by fighting over the "right" judges, but in Congress exercising its powers under Article 3, section 2 of the Constitution and limit the Supreme Court's power of review over state laws. If the Republicans achieve this, it might be the only unqualified good they will achieve in their era of dominance. Buchanan writes:

Is the cause of reining in a renegade court hopeless? Are we fated to live under a judicial dictatorship? No. And the remedy is right there in the GOP platform and the Constitution. Under Article III, Section 2, Congress, with President Bush’s signature, can almost wholly restrict the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

In 2004, the House voted 233 to 192 to take gay marriage off the Supreme Court docket and by 247 to 173 to remove the Pledge of Allegiance. If the Senate will go forth and do likewise, the Supreme Court’s right of review of laws in both areas would be ended.

On Jan. 1, Chief Justice Rehnquist in his State of the Judiciary Address noted with alarm that Congress had begun to use its power under Article III. He did not deny that Congress had that power.

Will Bush press the Senate to join the House in restricting the court’s jurisdiction over gay marriage and the Pledge of Allegiance? If not, he is not serious. And if the Senate will not follow the House lead, conservatives should stop wasting time and money on their campaigns. The battle against judicial dictatorship is winnable. And there is no excuse for not fighting it.