Captain Ed is reporting that our new Senator Ken Salazar is backing off his campaign promise to support the President’s judicial nominees. Here is the issue with which Salazar, who has otherwise attempted to act in a bipartisan manner, has made himself vulnerable in far off 2010.
And yesterday reminds us why the judicial nominee issue is so vitally important:
I have to say I share some of the outrage at the US Supreme Court decision Roper v. Simmons, overturning state laws that allow the death penalty for juvenile offenders, that is rippling throughout the center-right. The anger is justly targeted directly at Justice Anthony Kennedy.
I’ve heard both Michael Medved and Laura Ingraham railing against the decision on air, with Laura stating she believes this is the “tipping point” for the American people in their desire to reform the high court.
Tony Blankley concludes his assault on the majority decision with this insight:
When a Supreme Court justice feels it necessary to write as the closing words of his opinion that he still holds fidelity to the Constitution, it is more than reasonable to assume he knows he has just betrayed that sacred document. But at least he has vouchsafed his popularity at liberal cocktail parties for another year.
One of Kennedy’s lynchpin arguments was that he felt there was a “consensus” of states (about 30) opposed the death penalty for juveniles in all cases. But the editors at Opinion Journal make this terrific point:
This idea of invoking state laws to define a “consensus” also runs up against any number of notable Supreme Court precedents, including Roe v. Wade. When Roe was decided in 1973, all 50 states had some prohibition against abortion on the books. But never mind.
Kennedy also cited the opinions of international law to show that the US is out of step on this issue. But Blankley made another point: if we went by the standard of European countries on abortion, Roe v. Wade would definitely have to be re-examined, precisely because our nation’s laws on this issue are more liberal than theirs.
Frankly, the ruling is just absurd and fuels President Bush’s case to stock the court with strict constructionists as well as the Senate Republicans’ case to use the “nuclear option” to install those justices over phony filibusters – and lack of support from Ken Salazar.
The Grand Junction Sentinel is also reporting the story on Salazar’s switch.