Leftist hysterics over Bush High Court picks

I don't know about you, but I think it's high time Americans began to insist on the elimination of leftist pinheads from our elite institutions of academia, and especially in our law schools. We don't live in the kind of country that practices the kind of politics and law such academics ascribe to.

In fact, it's a shame that any law school professor has a political agenda so powerful that it obviously influences the way he or she interprets the Constitution for students. But it happens far too often; and mostly, these people tilt to the far left.

In a column that appeared Thursday in the Los Angeles Times, one such elitist legal academic -- Bruce Ackerman, a professor of Law and Political Science at Yale -- made such incredibly stupid and incorrect statements about American law that, were I dean of Yale, I would have fired him before the ink on the L.A. Time's next edition were dry, tenure or not.

Of course, without more public pressure on our institutions of higher learning, a guy like me will never be dean of Yale.

TRENDING: Caught red-handed

Ackerman's column focused on President George W. Bush's potential Supreme Court nominees. Besides repeating the tired and well-worn liberal claims that "the Supreme Court gave Bush his victory" and that because he narrowly lost the popular vote "he has no mandate to lead," Ackerman calls for a senatorial jihad against any Bush nominee to either the federal bench or the High Court.

He fears, you see, "right wing extremists" may be named to the federal courts. In liberalspeak, that means constitutional interpreters, not constitutional editors.

In his column Ackerman hails perhaps one of the most unconstitutional presidents in modern history -- FDR -- while whining that Bush's use of the Federalist Society (rather than the leftist American Bar Association) to help him select justices and judges is somehow wrong.

Also, he discusses the potential "constitutional revolution" on our horizon if Bush's picks make it through to the bench -- but he says it in a way that makes him sound as though he believes our founding document, and a judge's desire to follow what it says, is a bad thing.

At one point, this "legal expert" even suggests that Bush's Supreme Court justices will issue opinions that won't reflect "the will of the people" -- as if "the will of the people" has a damned thing to do with interpreting whether or not a law or rule is permissible under the Constitution.

"Will of the people" enters into it only insofar as a correct interpretation of how the Constitution and the law actually protect Americans' rights -- a good thing.

Ackerman interchanges the terms "reactionary" and "conservative" in his attempt to describe a future Bush-influenced Supreme Court, and spews the terms out as if they were four-letter words designed to draw instant indignation and condemnation.

And he wails away at the administration for its reputed (but false) hatred of the environment, advocacy of states/ rights, and support for Americans who believe in God Almighty.

Remember, now, this guy is teaching law students. Scared? You should be; your kid may be one of his students. If you were wondering why Junior or Jane "seemed to be getting these weird ideas" about our country and our society, now you know why.

I've said this before -- and this incident just highlights the reason why it is so urgent to begin insisting on this -- Americans who are concerned with traditional constitutional values simply will not see much progress made in the foreseeable future unless the schools, colleges and universities are cleansed of these leftist pinheads who have no regard for, or understanding of, our founding principles.

It's ironic that some of the freedoms these people work so hard to discount or distort are part of others they do believe in, which are all contained in the very same document -- the Constitution. That irony never seems to dawn on these people.

Funnier still is the reality that under the kind of quasi-communist system these people espouse like others espouse Catholicism, Islam or Christianity, there would be far fewer American kids able to afford such elite educational opportunities. Hence, far fewer elitist academic pinheads who would have a job.

Liberals like Ackerman always use the same tactic -- fear -- to scare people into believing that Bush and the Senate are going to return our country to its constitutional roots. Why such a restoration would alarm these people is beyond rational thought, but that's essentially what's going on here.

Constitutional absolutists have always made liberals uncomfortable because traditional constitutionalism is so diametrically opposed to the leftist political agenda. They know that, and I guess that's why Bush makes them nervous.

I don't know if the president will get his way on his picks for the federal bench and for the Supreme Court. I don't even know what sort of judges and justices he prefers. Leftist legal eagles like Ackerman don't either, but no matter -- they so fear what could happen they become hysterical when discussing it.

But this I do know: If Bush is really serious about returning control to the states and the people, about the freedom to express religion, the right to be armed, and genuine anti-affirmative action and equality, then the left has a reason to be fearful. Their power to control the masses, distort the historical truths of this nation, and suppress contrary opinions will be lost, perhaps forever.

In other words, as the tone of Ackerman's column clearly demonstrates, these people are scared to death of becoming irrelevant.

Just knowing that ought to make you question a guy like Ackerman's credibility, sincerity and dedication to the real laws of our land.