Sphincter Contractions – noun – sphinc•ter con•trac•tions – What liberals in media experience repeatedly and often when they do not know what a judicial nominee thinks about such things as abortion, gay rights and the separation of church and state.
The morning President Bush nominated White House counsel Harriet Miers to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor that is exactly what members of the liberal media in this country seemed to be experiencing. By watching the major networks one would think they were reporting about an event approaching the proportions of a national crisis, if not disaster.
How often in the last week have we been told by commentators ... bearing furrowed brows:
“Ms. Miers has never been a judge. She has no track record of judicial opinions or any other significant paper trail for that matter. How is one supposed to determine whether to rake Ms. Miers over the coals or give her a hug? What is Bush trying to pull? Is he being sneaky? Or even possibly … dare we say it … underhanded?”
“Bush claims to have nominated Ms Miers because he happens to hold her in high esteem as an attorney. What an odd criteria? Who does Bush think he’s kidding? He wants us to believe he nominated her largely because he thinks she is just a darned good attorney and would make an excellent judge? Why, that’s like saying he nominated her because he thinks she is qualified. Surely, none of us are so simple-minded as to believe such tripe, are we? What a preposterous standard by which to choose a nominee. After all, surely he knows that whether or not a nominee is qualified is not for him to decide. In this country, we in the media are to make that determination, are we not? Most certainly, something nefarious is afoot. It’s just that we can’t yet tell for sure exactly what that something is. But, be assured … we in the mainstream (i.e. liberal) media will figure it out soon. Then we will be able to “report” that “news” to America and, when we do, all of you out there will at least then be able to understand the source of our sphincter contractions that recently have been approaching epidemic proportions.”
Reduced to its basics, isn’t their concern really that Ms. Miers hasn’t telegraphed to them in advance how she will rule on issues near and dear to their sweet pea-picking liberal hearts. For them to not be able to know with certainty what her opinion will be before she is elevated to the bench terrifies them. Sadly, it is obvious they only want judges of whom they can know with certainty that the “fix” is in. Well, too bad. That also happens to be a concern shared with people like members of the Mafia who are about to go on trial for murder. If we don’t like judges who could be influenced by mobsters, why would we want judges who are susceptible to pressures imposed by, say … a biased, yet powerful, media? After all, when it comes to judicial decisions a “fix” is a bad thing, and isn’t a fix a fix, no matter who’s doing the fixing?
Apparently, many in the media have confused the role of judges with that of politicians. It is the latter that presumably are voted into office and allowed to remain there, largely because their personal attitudes, beliefs and opinions reflect those of a majority of the electorate. Thankfully, however, that is NOT the job description of judges. Ideally, aren’t judges to be above the sway of popular opinion? On a day-to-day basis, they are supposed to be about applying the laws passed by politicians to particular facts set before them on a case-by-case basis, and consequently to render decisions that are impartial. In fact, no one should really want judges who would allow their personal persuasions to torque their judgments; much less judges who are capable of being certified by the media as being susceptible to a fix. Otherwise we would be opening the door to a host of corruptions that most certainly would eventually undermine our entire system of government, as the meanings and effects of our laws would no longer be ascertainable in advance. Rather, they would come to mean whatever judges want them to mean at the moment. And, if that were to be permitted in our society for very long, who knows where it would lead? If you can imagine, ultimately we could be brought to the point where liberal judges and others would be found justifying corrupt judicial decisions by saying things like:
“The Constitution of the United States of America is a living document that doesn’t necessarily mean what its plain language would seem to imply to those of a simple mind. Rather, it is a most magnificent document that has penumbras containing meanings, rationales and rights that emanate from, and evolve with, our popular culture. Therefore, from this reality it should be obvious even to those of you of limited intellect that it simply is not possible for the average simpleton to know in advance what the Constitution means until we inform you of what it shall mean today, which, it goes without saying, may not be what it meant yesterday. Please, on this point you must trust us. Otherwise, there simply is no way for you to understand, much less accept, many of our decisions. For example, if you accept on faith that what we have just told you is true, it will help you to accept such things as why lethal injection for a convicted murderer should be considered a violation of the Constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, while the scientifically demonstrable excruciating pain that is experienced by a fetus being dismembered is not. The reasoning is really quite simple. Were the latter procedure to be found cruel and unusual in accord with a simpleton’s misunderstanding of that phrase that is found in the Constitution, that would interfere impermissibly with the Constitutionally guaranteed right to dismember those fetuses which we have found to be of surpassing importance, notwithstanding the complete absence of any language in the Constitution itself that would even remotely suggest that such a right should exist at all. You do understand, don’t you?”
© 2005 Clifford C. Nichols, Esq.
Cliff Nichols is an attorney practicing criminal defense/entertainment law in Santa Monica, California. He may be contacted regarding this editorial at either (310) 917-1083 or www.cliffnicholslaw.com or you may join his blog at www.thedailystand.com