U. S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, who just observed his ninetieth birthday (April 29), has announced his intention to retire from the Court at the end of the current Court term early this summer. A far left-wing member of SCOTUS, Stevens is sure to be replaced by a nominee of a far left-wing stripe. The only questions are whether the nominee will "out-liberal" Stevens and, if so, whether that nominee could survive the grueling examination he/she should be given by the Senate regarding his/her views and values.

If there is any meaning today to the first words of the Constitution, "We, the People of the United States . . .," that meaning includes the fact that the American people have a right to know — a necessity of knowing — the basic philosophical and constitutional positions of their leaders — before those leaders are chosen.

This is true even — or especially — with appointed federal judges. Reconstructionist (i.e., "activist/liberal") judges are leading the assault on America's Judeo-Christian foundations in our nation's Culture War. (This "Culture War" is a climactic battle between the Judeo-Christian and Humanistic worldviews.) Indeed, these Reconstructionist federal judges (particularly U. S. Supreme Court Justices) have changed the nature of the courts, the Constitution, and the culture in this War.

Federal judges are, however, more insulated from the consent of the governed than other government officials (this "judicial insulation" was intended by the Constitution's Framers, who, however, anticipated that judges would be "the weakest branch of government"). But the "weakest branch of government" expectation became more and more a fiction as Reconstructionist philosophy gained ascendance throughout America's elite. The problem with judges was pinpointed in 1936 by U. S. Supreme Court Justice (later Chief Justice) Harlan Stone, who wrote that, "While unconstitutional exercise of power by the executive and legislative branches of government is subject to judicial restraint, the only check upon our own exercise of power [i.e., the Court's exercise of power] is our own sense of self-restraint." But Reconstructionist judges openly scoff at the idea of judicial self-restraint and have fabricated a laundry list of justifications for their judicial activism.

The result? Abraham Lincoln made this clear in 1861 in his First Inaugural Address:

The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government, upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having, to that extent, practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.

Today, the people have, far too much, "resigned their government" into the hands of the Supreme Court. What, then, can We, the People, do to regain our rightful control over the judiciary? An obviously critical feature of our Court Watch campaign to "Revive the Constitution" — to rescue the Constitution from the clutches of Reconstructionist judges — is to select Constitutionalist judges, especially when the selection is of the magnitude we now face with replacing Justice Stevens. Selection of a Constitutionalist justice, in turn, involves at least three steps as explained in our "Courting Justice Blitz" (see below for ordering details):

1. Applying the Right Principles — We must understand the basic principles of Constitutionalist philosophy concerning the Constitution itself and apply these principles to the philosophies of every judicial nominee. Only nominees whose proven philosophy measures up to Constitutionalist principles should be given a seat on the bench. [Our "Blitz" explains these principles.]
2. Attacking the Right Targets — We must understand that there are powerful Reconstructionist forces working frenetically to prevent the American people and politicians from understanding the necessity of closely scrutinizing judicial nominees and requiring that they advocate Constitutionalist principles. These Reconstructionists have erected almost impenetrable barriers (arguments) against closely examining judicial nominees. These barriers must be prime targets against which we Constitutionalists launch our heaviest ammunition (arguments). [Our "Blitz" identifies these targets.]
3. Asking the Right Questions Potential judges must be questioned as long and as hard (and their records likewise examined) as is necessary to determine their general philosophy as it pertains to law and their legal philosophy and to their views and values concerning the Constitution. Only if a nominee's answers are genuinely Constitutionalist should he/she be approved. [Our "Blitz" includes a questionnaire of more than 100 items to be asked judicial nominees. Get your copy and urge your U. S. Senator to use these questions when Obama's nominee to replace Justice Stevens appears before the Senate!]

We American Constitutionalists who hold a high view of our Constitution, believing that the Constitution is, and must be, the Supreme Law of the Land must act. We are encouraged in this vital endeavor by one of America's most brilliant and articulate defenders of a limited judiciary — Justice Felix Frankfurter. Frankfurter wrote in 1941 that "Judges as persons, or courts as institutions . . . are entitled to no greater immunity from criticism [or questioning] than other persons or institutions . . . . Judges must be kept mindful of their limitations and their ultimate public responsibility by a vigorous stream of criticism [or questioning] expressed with candor however blunt (italics added)" (Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 289-290).