Viewing the Supreme Court Nomination Battle From the Far Left

Here is how MoveOn.org describes the upcoming Supreme Court nomination process:

Just days after Justice O'Connor's resignation, the fight to protect our rights is in full swing. By all accounts, this will be a long, fierce campaign. The radical right is already pouring millions of dollars in large, secret contributions into the right wing spin machine, determined to ram through whomever Bush puts forward...

If Bush announces an extremist nominee we'll to need respond fast and hard with ads on the airwaves and in major newspapers that get our message out—and none of it comes cheap. So today we're launching our Emergency Fund to Protect our Rights with an initial goal of $500,000. If you can help us get there now, we can leap straight into action the moment we hear the news.

If keeping an extremist off the Supreme Court is important to you, this is a great time to chip in...

The national press is already reporting that this will be the most expensive, ruthless Supreme Court nomination ever. They're calling this the "Presidential election of 2005" and estimating as much as $100 million will be spent in the fight.

Why are far-right leaders like Jerry Falwell and James Dobson determined to spend so much? Because even with Republican control of Congress and the White House, our independent courts (not to mention the Constitution) still interfere with their drive to impose a narrow, far right agenda on the rest of America. After more than 10 years without an opening on the Supreme Court, this is the chance they've been waiting for to seize complete control...

Look again at the words they use: Radical right. Secret contributions. Right wing spin machine. Ram through. Extremist nominee. Ruthless. Impose a narrow, far right agenda on the rest of America. Seize complete control.

Now contrast those words with the words and substantive content of these previous postings:

Orrin Hatch: Don't Overstate "Advise and Consent"
Judicial Activism: Commandeering the Public Debate & Violating the Founding Principles of America
Are You an Originalist?
How Original Intent Does Not Equal Conservative Judicial Activism
"The Supreme Court Has Converted Itself From a Legal Institution to a Political One"
Relinking Constitutional Law & Jurisprudence to the Constitution
Rediscovering Proper Judicial Reasoning

It is worth repeating: The use of extreme language by the far left is an attempt to turn the nomination process into a raw power struggle that distracts everyone from having a truly open, public debate about the core question of whether judicial activism (i.e., legislating from the bench) or judicial restraint (i.e., legislatures, not courts, legislate) is the proper role for the judicial branch of our government.