Last week, Supreme Court Justice David Souter announced his
retirement, providing President Barack Obama with his first
opportunity to nominate someone to the high court.
Liberal groups are already pressuring the administration to name a
left-wing activist to the court. But they should remember that judges
are not in the business of writing laws or twisting it to serve their
policy preferences.
"Obama should seek judges who will apply the law as it was written,
not how they would like it to be written to address the particular
parties before them," Heritage Foundation legal scholar Robert Alt
writes in the New York Post. "To do otherwise in replacing Souter will
surely shift the Court further to the left, and further away from the
rule of law."
"Americans don't want judges who will bend the law toward the side
they favor," writes Heritage Foundation Ronald Reagan Fellow and
former U.S. Attorney General Ed Meese. "They want a fair judge who
will apply the law in the same way -- as the people's representatives
in the legislature wrote it -- regardless of who is before the court."
During the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Samuel
Alito, then-Senator Obama said, "I believe firmly that the
Constitution calls for the Senate to advise and consent. I believe it
calls for meaningful advice and consent and that includes an
examination of a judge's philosophy, ideology, and record."
Conservatives agree with this, which is why it's important to closely
examine the future nominee.
Conservatives must also remember that Justice Souter was not a
consistent liberal activist, and replacing him is "not a zero-sum
game," argues Heritage senior legal policy analyst Andrew
Grossman. While Justice Souter is a far cry from an originalist
-- one who applies the original meaning of the Constitution
-- Heritage legal experts agree that his record demonstrates a
rather conservative approach in certain areas, including crime,
punishment, lawsuit abuse, and various social issues.