Finally- Grounds For Impeachment

Not that I think it will happen, of course, with a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress. But this past week, Wonderboy finally provided the nation with an unequivocal basis to impeach him. In fact, so blatant was it that it merited an editorial in the pages of the Wall Street Journal.

The issue, of course, is our First Rookie's call for the Supreme Court judge to replace retiring Souter to be 'empathetic,' and to treat each case on the basis of its particular facts, rather than the law.

I wrote in this recent post about Constitutional grounds on which one can find fault with Wonderboy's recent actions,

"Stein noted that the underlying problem with this administration, the prior one, and the Congress, is its unconstitutional behavior.

The takings of AIG, summary firing of GM's CEO, without being a shareholder, and forcible injection of government into our large banks, are all basically violations of the Constitution."

Now, David Lewis Shaefer, a political science professor at Holy Cross, writes,

"The price of what Mr. Obama calls judicial pragmatism or empathy is a willingness to disregard the rule of law, the democratic process, and the Constitutional text in favor of judges' own idiosyncratic notions of fairness. And that is hard to square with the president's constitutional duty to take care that the laws and Constitution are faithfully executed."

I am reminded, in all of this, of the Bork confirmation hearings. Teddy Kennedy kept spewing about Bork not having considered the individual situation of some plaintiff in a case involving a trucking company and a union.

Bork attempted to educate the Massachusetts Senator regarding the rules governing how the case could be considered by the appellate court, on which Bork sat at the time. The esteemed jurist noted that only points of law which were being appealed were basis for consideration, and nothing else. That's the law.

Kennedy would have none of it, insisting Bork was a cold-hearted, nasty man. Lacking in 'empathy,' as it were.

Bork was right then, as Schaefer is now.

Only this time, we can actually use the sitting president's own words against him. He has plainly indicated that he will seek to choose and nominate a Supreme Court justice on the basis of their likelihood to ignore law, and use 'empathy,' instead, to decide cases.

This is a subversion of his oath of office, in that he will be explicitly trying to undermine our Constitution, an oath to uphold which he took upon entering his current office.

It doesn't get much clearer than this. If only we had a Congress that would respect and enforce the Constitution.