Supremes United

Those of us who understand the Islamo-fascist existential threat to Western Civilization see no sensible alternative to victory in Iraq. We support whatever else needs to be done to eradicate the threat at its source whether that means wiping out the terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq, bombing the Iranian nuclear facilities before they produce atomic bombs or stomping on the genocidal maniacs in Africa.

What is discouraging is not the progress of the war but the opposition in America that threatens to repeat our Vietnam mistake. After writing 29 posts on the subject last year and debating endlessly with anti-war friends, I’ve concluded that they are in denial and cannot be influenced by logic. Democratic politicians and some Republicans see the war as a political opportunity.

Thus my decision: No more posts trying to convince people who have no clue, but all the effort I can muster to defeat the politicians who are on the wrong side of history.

I’m convinced that President Bush, with the support of the military and a strong majority in Congress, will continue to fight and win the battle and provide for the defense of America. I’m not worried about the government’s highest priorities.

I believe that the President’s next highest priority is the effort to change the federal judiciary by placing more conservative judges on the courts. In that effort Bush has already had a spectacular success punctuated by the appointments of Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Sam Alito. With yet only a four-justice minority, the Roberts court has already had a significant positive effect.

Monday's decision rejecting a free-speech challenge to having military recruiters on college campuses marked the ninth consecutive ruling in which all of the justices agreed. Roberts wrote that the Solomon amendment "regulates conduct, not speech. It affects what law schools must do — afford equal access to military recruiters — not what they may or may not say."

In a recent abortion case from New Hampshire, the court ruled that states could not restrict access to abortions when the health of the mother was at stake, while reviving a state law that requires minor girls to notify their parents before having an abortion. This was another good decision.

Last week, in another abortion-related ruling, liberal Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote the opinion saying that racketeering laws did not extend to abortion protests, even if they turned violent. Well done, again a unanimous decision.

Two weeks ago, Roberts spoke for the court and gave a mild rebuke to the Bush administration for its refusal to allow a small Brazilian sect in New Mexico to serve hallucinogenic tea at religious services. In the "high tea" case, his opinion made an important statement about religious liberty. Federal authorities cannot infringe on religious practices unless they have a truly compelling reason for doing so, Roberts said.

There have been 29 written opinions, 21 of which were unanimous, largely due to Roberts’ leadership. During recent oral arguments, he suggested he wanted to cut back on the reach of the Clean Water Act, wanted to strike down all campaign spending limits, and would vote to uphold the controversial Texas redistricting plan.

In the next year I see the court (1) disposing of the hideous practice of partial birth abortion; (2) reversing the Kilo travesty that allows public entities to take private property and give it to another private person in order to increase tax revenues; (3) working to dismantle the artificial “wall of separation” between Church and State.

If, God willing, Bush has the opportunity to replace one more liberal judge (John Stevens or Ruth Bader Ginsberg) the effect on American liberties and society will be a legacy that will long outlast the President’s other domestic policies.