Take politics out of the Judicial Branch.

I seen a lot of commentary like this, discussing the strategic options for selecting a nominee to replace Justice O'Connor.

I think that Bush, in nominating John Roberts took the correct approach. Find the best qualified and justice, without regard to his or her record of political activity. I hate political hacks as judges. They bring the wrong attitude to jurisprudence, i.e. the idea that their function is to determine what kinds of laws are best for the country, rather than determining what those laws are and how they were intended to function. The Constitution sets restraints, it is true, but when you view it primarily as a means of promoting the Bill of Rights, rather than of carrying out the purposes stated in the Preamble, you turn it into a club to bludgeon the states and the people and deny them the rights to define basic society. This is the result of 50 years of focusing on individual civil rights over democracy and the rights of society.

We all have different ideas about what individuals should be allowed to do, but the general rule is that we submit to the will of the whole rather than doing whatever we feel like doing, such as respecting the property of others, controlling our anger, lust, covetousness, and rowdiness. At the same time, the general rule is also that people should be free to seek happiness in their own way, provided they do not become a burden to others.

What I admire about John Roberts is that he understands what the limits on judicial powers should be, and that those limits must be imposed and enforced by the courts themselves. There is no body provided by the Constitution capable of setting aside overreaching judicial rulings. Until there is a Constitutional Amendment enabling some check on such behavior, we need to appoint justices who believe in judicial restraint.

Bush should focus on finding other justices who understand and apply that standard, not their race, sex or other political criteria. He should use the objections by Senator Feinstein as a guideline for how not to select a justice. Her criteria might be appropriate for selecting legislators, but they are utterly inappropriate to judges. A compassionate judge is an inconsistent and illogical one, because such judges look to results rather than the logic and applicability of the law as a goal in reviewing decisions. In short, pick judges with the ability to comprehend the flow and structure of jurisprudence and the understanding that the Supreme Court is meant to superintend a system which does not impose the policy views of judges, but imposes the constraints of the Constitution on the policies of the other branches only to the extent those constraints are clearly stated. The majority of its job is to interpret and apply laws to specific facts, not to dictate to those who make laws as to what laws are wise, fair or ill-advised, only to try to make them work as intended. Any law which leaves too much room for bureaucrats and judges to make policy decisions is a bad law. Find justices who understand that, and they will save the republic.