But for the seriousness of the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, it would be comical to observe the cries of extremism against Alito from those who argue that he would support President Bush in establishing a near monarchy.
Liberal editorialists and politicians have seized on Alito's alleged expansive view of executive power to oppose his nomination. According to them, Alito would enable the president in his nefarious schemes to torture enemy combatants (and probably domestic liberals) and to incarcerate them indefinitely, and to permit the government unchecked power to spy on American citizens.
How wonderfully serendipitous, given the current flap over the president's warrantless electronic intercepts of Al Qaeda phone calls, that the president's pick happens to have a paper trail revealing his "dangerous" notions about presidential authority. Why, in the words of columnist Robert Kuttner, "[Alito] would give Bush effective control of all three branches of government and the hard-right long-term dominance of the high court."
Setting aside the left's disturbing tendency to sympathize with everything Al Qaeda these days, don't be fooled by all this noise about runaway presidential powers. They only object to executive largesse when they don't control the presidency, which, with any luck, will remain the case for years to come.
Their real concern and please excuse me for stating the obvious is over abortion rights. If Alito is confirmed, it is actually conceivable the Supreme Court could overturn Roe v. Wade and return the issue of the legality of abortion back to the states.
Liberals you know, the people now complaining about imperialistic presidential authority are horrified at the idea that the Court might poke a hole in their glorious precedent establishing a federal constitutional right to abortion.
You see, it is not unchecked governmental power they're worried about or encroachments on democratic rights otherwise they, too, would be outraged at the Supreme Court's disenfranchisement of the states and people on issues like abortion. No, it's not a matter of how much power any particular branch of government has, but whether it will use that power to impose a liberal worldview.
Unless a president is willing to govern like a liberal on most issues, he is a conservative extremist. Unless the Court will continue to usurp the states' and peoples' rights and mandate such things as the nationwide legality of abortion and a strict separation of the Christian religion from government, it is a tool of the reactionary right wing.
Indeed, I have decided to renounce my association with mainstream conservatism. After hearing no less an authority than Sen. Dianne Feinstein expounding on conservative extremism on "Fox News Sunday," I realized the error of my ways. What was I thinking?
Feinstein told Brit Hume, "I think there still is a mainstream conservative movement rather than an activist conservative movement." And anyone who thinks Roe v. Wade was improperly decided by the Supreme Court is outside the mainstream and worthy of being filibustered.
Feinstein then went on to pretend her support for abortion probably on demand, no less is based on popular support for the abominable practice. Feinstein said, "The American people, according to the latest ABC poll [are] 60 percent supportive of Roe. This is a pivotal question. And he's in a pivotal spot because of Sandra Day O'Connor's particular position on the court, where she was dispositive in so many 5-4 votes."
Does anyone really think Feinstein or other left-wingers would do a sudden about-face on abortion if public opinion changed? More to the point, how can anyone take seriously such arguments from people who are supportive of a wholly fabricated constitutional "right," established by judicial fiat, that has taken the issue out of the democratic process?
The left's idea of an ideologically extreme, democracy-smothering activist is one who might vote to overturn a case born of ideologically extreme, democracy-smothering activism. A justice who would interpret the Constitution according to its plain meaning and the Framers' original intent is to be damned as an extremist because he would dare to disestablish a "right" that has been crammed down the throats of the states and people by an imperial judiciary.
The left is shameless. It will oppose Alito precisely because he is not willing to support extra-constitutional power grabs by any branch of government against the constitutional rights of the people. It is not extremism, encroachments on the separation of powers doctrine, or infringements on civil or democratic rights they oppose, but those who are unwilling to engage in those very excesses in furtherance of an "enlightened," "progressive" liberal utopia.