WorldNetDaily: How O'Connor got her job

Joseph Farah bluntly says that she lied about being a Constitutional originalist--which she proved not to be--and she also got fraudulent character testimony from Ken Starr.

Read the commentary for yourselves, and judge Ken Starr's actions as best you might. But the big point here is that no one, who was a real Constitutional originalist in the last twenty-four years, would ever have been "a swing vote." "Swing votes" on the Supreme Court represent Justices who can't make up their minds--and who, therefore, sway with political winds. The politics here might be national partisan politics, or a simple matter of getting a "club reference" from her particular social circle. More than once have I felt that certain institutions in Washington are far too clubbish for the country's good. Sadly, the Supreme Court of the United States of America is one of them. (The Senate is, or at least used to be, another--though whether the Senate will remain as congenial as a private gentlemen's club once was is anyone's guess. Some of the language I hear bruited about on the floor of the Senate is the equivalent of a young Turk pouring beer into another member's lap. But I digress.)

The larger point is this: George W. Bush needs to appoint to the Court someone who will not continue to condemn tens of millions of babies to death just because he thinks that precedent demands it. I can understand naming someone to the Court willing to advise it on a middle ground between surrender to terrorists and destruction of civil liberty. But Alberto Gonzales is not the best person for that job. Janice Rogers Brown would be far preferable.