In the whirlwind that followed the qualification of the recall election of 2003, I was faced with a number of choices.  My choice for Governor, Darrell Issa decided to drop out of the race, after qualifying the recall.  Tom McClintock, who is a committed and principled conservative, did not have the horses (so to speak) to win, and I was concerned with the entry of Cruz Bustamante into the Governor’s race.  Conservatives started the recall.  We couldn’t hand the seat to Bustamante, who would give us another seven years of Davis without the brakes on liberalism.  Schwarzenegger appeared the only choice.

So I met with him, in a hotel room in the Mission Inn in Riverside, and I asked him a number of questions.  One of those questions was how he would approach the question of life.  He said California was "a pro-choice state" and that being pro-life was political suicide.  He "agreed with the principles of the pro-life" movement, after all, he said, "I am Catholic" but there was "nothing a Governor could do about the issues of life."  He followed up saying "You will like the judges I appoint. They will be strict constructionists. That is where the real pro-life battles will be fought."

I didn’t like the judges he appointed.  Governor Schwarzenegger has routinely ignored his commitment to appoint strict constructionist judges.  But his point was correct.  Much of liberalism has been constitutionalized by the courts, and the political fight to advance the principles in which the conservative movement believes begins in the courts.  The next Governor doesn’t have to be "pro-life" to advance pro-life principles, but he or she needs to understand the importance of good judges.  Judicial selections are sometimes the only thing that survives the Chief Executive’s term.  Much of what the George Bushes and Ronald Reagan did can be undone by the current President and Congress, but Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Samuel Alito will impact society and culture for years to come.

The true impact of judges can be seen in the difference between Robert Bork and Anthony Kennedy.  In 1991, a Robert Bork would have voted to overturn Roe v. Wade.  Kennedy, who had been solidly pro-life on the bench to that point, balked.  The movement has been stuck in the same spot ever since.  Judges matter.

That means who we choose as the next Governor needs to know exactly how important judges are.  In California, we have been stuck with Ronald George, a Republican choice for Chief Justice, for almost 15 years.  The decision by Pete Wilson to appoint Ron George to the court, and then to the Chief Justice position was his single greatest mistake.  The Ron George appointment overturned the parental consent requirement for abortion, and foisted gay marriage upon an unwilling state.  He has been the single greatest disaster to the California judiciary appointed by a Republican.  That is why the next Republican candidate for governor has to understand the role of the judiciary in a constitutional republic, and commit to appoint judges that will strictly construe constitutions and laws, and not bend those writings to fit their own social agenda.

I know that Steve Poizner understands this, and quite frankly, I trust him to appoint the right judges.  He and I may not always agree on what social policy ought to be, but we both agree that social policy ought to be decided in the Legislature, and not foisted upon us by judges who have the wrong view of the role of the judiciary in a constitutional republic.  I don’t know where Meg Whitman would be in this kind of a debate, and after my experience with our current governor, who flat out lied to me about the judges he would appoint, I am no longer willing to take those promises on faith.  Poizner has been involved in the political process, and has proven he understands what political commitment means.  Whitman has been nowhere in sight, absent from the battles in which we have found ourselves over the years.  I personally am no longer willing to take the chance on getting another Ron George type appointment by an untried and untested Meg Whitman.

Whitman has been silent on judges, and more important, has been silent on politics.  She has been very successful in business, and for that she deserves credit.  But those who are successful in business alone make notoriously bad politicians.  Politics is not business.  Business decisions are by definition perceived to be profitable to everyone involved.  Political decisions are only necessary when one side or the other will lose by the decision.  Making a deal in business is a good thing.  Making the right decision in politics is more important than making a decision.  As Governor Schwarzenegger has found out, making a bad deal gets a politician short term good press, and long term disasters.

Whitman suffers from the same naivete about politics that haunts Governor Schwarzenegger.  Sure of their own competence, for good reason, they can allow their ego to cloud their judgment, and make bad decisions just for the sake of "making a decision."  Bad decisions on judges, like bad decisions on budgets, may not have immediate effects, but their long term impacts can be devastating.  We simply, as a party, and as state, can no longer take a chance on untested and naive business people simply because they have been successful at business.  Poizner has been tested.  He gets politics.  He gets the importance of political decisions.  I don’t anything about Meg Whitman, and quite frankly, I am no longer willing to take a chance.  I have been burned once.  I won’t let it happen again.

This entry was posted on Monday, February 9th, 2009 at 12:00 am and is filed under Blog Posts.