Just because G-Dub didn't nominate Satan,

doesn't mean we should shut up about the Supreme Court nominee.

The mainstream media have (as usual) missed a very important point. And that point is that it is the Supreme Court's job to interpret the Constitution. And it can't do a good job interpreting the Constitution unless its members are learned, capable of having an open dialogue, and representative of the full spectrum of political and academic views.

The Republicans like to say that the American judiciary is somehow controlled by a left-wing cabal whose aim is to thwart the will of the people when it overturns measures that deny constitutional rights (e.g., when anti-abortion laws that go farther than Roe v. Wade would allow are enjoined from enforcement or when "protection of marriage" measures that strip rights away from homosexuals are overturned).

We rarely hear it said that YES, it is the judiciary's job to overturn the popular will when that will would deny basic rights and freedoms to members of our society. Without the judiciary to play that role, we are not safe from becoming a fascist nation.

We rarely hear a Republican forced to respond to the fact that the federal judiciary is primarily made up of Reagan and Bush I nominees. There are, in fact, more Republican nominees than Carter/Clinton nominees (and that is due in no small part to the fact that the Republicans denied numerous Clinton nominees the chance to receive a floor vote). Left-wing cabal, huh?

Another point missed by the both the MSM talking heads and the activists on both sides is that we need a full spectrum of views on the Supreme Court. This so-called "5-4" ratio of the current court masks a real truth, and that it that the court no longer has a far left wing. Where we used to have Marshall and Brennan, we now have silence.

The Court is in fact represented this way:
1 Strong Liberal: Stevens
2 Center-Liberals: Breyer and Ginsburg
1 Centrist: Souter
2 Center-Conservatives: Kennedy and O'Connor
1 Strong Conservative: Rehnquist
2 Far Right Wing Reactionaries: Scalia and Thomas

The Court is like a bird trying to fly with half its left wing missing: it simply can't. Decisions are being made without looking at the problem from all sides.

While I haven't ever agreed with Scalia or Thomas except on that recent Kelo v. New London decision, I honestly would not mind having them on the court if we also had a Marshall and Brennan wing. While I am certain the Court would reach decisions I would rail against, at least I could believe that all views were aired and considered. At least I would have some sort of faith in the decisions. The justices are not supposed to be politicians, they are supposed to be analysts looking at the facts and the law, but if there are too many who come in with the predetermined notion that only the Federal Society view is legitimate, then the Court becomes a joke.

To echo an argument made here earlier this week, Democrats need to stop treating the Court like an extension of the DLC. Everything is NOT going to be OK just because we get somebody who hasn't participated in a lynching in the last 20 years. Roberts is not OK. We need some far left wingers to balance the far right wingers and we need to educate the public about the functions of the Court and the necessity for a wide variety of views, especially by those who be interpreting the Constitution and further abrogating our Fourth Amendment rights (to give just one example).

Unless we expand the discussion about why the judiciary is important and what kind of members it needs, the nebulous middle will continue to be disengaged about it, assuming (wrongly) that it is just about the appointment of pro-choice or anti-choice judges and no more. It is about so much more, and I think we must understand and communicate that more effectively.