With Moderation in Justice, For All...

The first woman justice of the Supreme Court has stepped down and in doing so has opened up a potential political firestorm. I am torn. On the one hand, I am vehemently opposed to confirming a die-hard conservative (particularly a social conservative), and in event someone like that was nominated, I feel as though I could do no less than to throw myself headlong into the bitter, partisan political fray in order to protect my rights.

Let me be clear: the above scenario is not what I want. In fact, I'd rather this whole process be very unremarkable. I'm not sure that is possible, considering the gravity of the potential implications, the heated political climate, and the extra-hyper media. I can only hope against all hope that history (and our most recent presidential election) is no indicator and that we can easily select a moderate who will answer tough questions from each side of the isle and then be confirmed by a majority from BOTH parties, with the only dissenters being those far on the fringe on the left and the right. How refreshing it would be to see our President not bow to the whim of his "conservative base" - a clear minority - and instead nominate someone who represents what MOST of us stand for? And then, to see frank and honest debate and discussion during the confirmation hearing during which the nominee panders only to the law and his or her interpretation of the Constitution?

We desperately need a few things. First, we need courage. We need the President to be courageous and surprise us all with nominating a moderate. We need courage from the Senate to ask the right questions in the right way and not invoke political slander. We need courage from the nominee to face all questions and answer them forthright. Second, we need honesty, from all parties (the media, the politicians, and the nominee). Finally, we need the ever-elusive Common Sense.

Let our new Supreme Court Justice be a humble individual who lives and breathes the law. Let him or her not bow to political pressure, nor "legislate from the bench," nor "repeal the status quo." Let our Justice interpret each case with the objectivity required of someone in such a position, using precedent, common law, and that piece of paper known as our Constitution to guide them.

I once read (in a Calvin and Hobbes cartoon) that "a good compromise leaves everybody unhappy." If this is true, let us be unhappy for a little while and later reap the benefits of a good, common-sense, majority decision. Because, in the end, choosing a glaringly conservative judge (or a glaringly liberal one, though the bench skews right these days) will only serve the interests of a few and for a short time, and will eventually be bad for us all.

So let's go. Someone surprise me.