It is likely that U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist will announce that he is stepping down from the court during the days to come. Mr. Rehnquist, who has experienced recent health problems, has been an exceptional jurist who will long be revered by conservatives.

With his impending retirement, panic-stricken Senate Democrats are frantically calling on President Bush to consult with them regarding his replacement and on other judicial nominees.

Do these senators forget that President Bush won the November elections with a stated platform that he would choose conservative jurists who do not legislate from the bench? The American people elected President Bush with the clear comprehension that he would nominate to the court those men and women who reflect his values.

The desperate Democrats are now whining that the constitutional provision of “advise and consent” means that the Senate must be involved in the judicial nomination process.

But Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., noted on the Senate floor Thursday the Constitution clearly states that the president shall be the one to nominate justices. They pointed out that President George Washington did not consult with the Senate on his judicial nominees, under the instruction of James Madison and other Framers.

The Democrats have, in typical fashion, attempted to rewrite history, apparently with the hope that the MTV Generation will not grasp what they’re doing.

So we can get ready for a further frenzied assault on President Bush’s Supreme Court nominee(s) and future federal court nominees.

Sen. Cornyn chastised Bush opponents for the aggressively disrespectful manner in which they have gone to war against the president’s judicial nominees. He observed that during the Senate confirmation process of Justice David Souter, he was bitterly opposed by liberals. Yet today he is considered one of the more liberal jurists on the court.

The point here is that the left’s angry rhetoric is often empty and hysterical, and is designed to placate radical abortion-rights and homosexual-rights advocates who buttress the party. I often wonder how their supporters take them seriously.

Ten Commandments decision drawing near

As this judicial firestorm continues, it appears that the high court will release its Ten Commandments decision Monday, June 27. The Ten Commandments cases include McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky and Van Orden v. Perry.

These cases clearly show why it is so important that President Bush makes his mark on our federal courts and the Supreme Court.

Our religious freedoms are quite literally at stake.

Mathew D. Staver, president and general counsel of Liberty Counsel, argued the McCreary County case earlier this year before the high court and filed amicus briefs in the Van Orden case before the federal district and appellate courts.

He said, “We are eagerly anticipating a decision by the Supreme Court on the Ten Commandments. There are more than 50 depictions of the Ten Commandments in the Supreme Court where I argued in defense of displaying the Commandments. The Ten Commandments are deeply rooted in American law and culture.”

Pray for the president

This is a pivotal time for our nation. We are approaching a crossroads that could distinguish our judicial landscape (and ultimately determine the fate of our religious freedoms).

I urge readers to join me in fervently praying for President Bush at this time. I am ardently beseeching God to grant our president great wisdom and discernment as he chooses those individuals who will make up the framework of our nation’s judicial system over the next generation.

We must support our president and continue to elect lawmakers who understand that the Ten Commandments are indeed a key foundation of our law and that America was founded with an obvious reliance on and faith in the Almighty.

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.