In the summer of 2005, Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman appointed to the high court, announced her resignation. Immediately, the liberals jumped into politics as usual mode and started demanding that Bush appoint a liberal to replace O'Connor.

We all know the liberals' only game plan in attacking the character or agendas for any appointee by Bush will be the "litmus test" that was applied to Judge Robert Bork during the Reagan Administration. The "litmus test" consists of one question: Are you pro-life or pro-choice*?

Democrats like to scare wrinkled citizens, every election year, that Republicans, if elected, will take away their Social Security. This is not far from the concept of scaring women – and some men – across the country that if a conservative is placed on the Supreme Court, the precedent in Roe v. Wade will be overturned and abortion will become illegal.

Rant Alert!

This is one of the issues that drove me from the Republican party into the welcoming arms of the Libertarians. The Republicans have allowed their party to be hijacked by the Bible-thumping pro-life pinheads. I am not saying pro-life supporters are pinheads; just the extreme ones that have usurped the Republican party as their theocratic soapbox. You know the ones, like Randall Terry, who was the spokesperson for the Schindler family – family of Terry Schiavo – in Florida. Or better yet, ones like Eric Robert Rudolph who bomb and kill innocent people all because of their connections to abortion.

Randall Terry is going to run for a Florida state senate seat. I guess his time in the spotlight during the Schiavo media circus instilled in him a desire for attention. Terry is openly calling for a theocracy – a Christian theocracy – in our country. He proclaimed, "I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good...if a Christian voted for Clinton, he sinned against God. It's that simple. Our goal is a Christian nation.We have a Biblical duty, we are called by God to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism. Theocracy means God rules. I've got a hot flash. God rules."

I may be mistaken, but that kind of sounds like what the Taliban was doing in Afghanistan. Didn't they have a group of "religious policemen" that went around and made sure everyone – especially the subservient women – conformed to Muslim law? And by Muslim law, I hope you understand that it means religious law.

Back to the Supreme Court. One of the names that was being tossed around, by the pundits and pontificators, as a potential appointee was Janice Rogers Brown. She had previously been appointed to the D.C. Court of Appeals by Bush, but the Democrats filibustered to prevent an up-or-down vote solely because they viewed her as conservative. More spcifically, California Democrat Senator Diane Feinstein opposed Rogers Brown because she was a staunch believer in – and protector of – individual personal property rights. Judge Rogers Brown is a highly qualified candidate by any standards, but since she doesn't fit the agenda of the liberals, she will be fought at all costs.

As a result of the ubiquitous filibusters, the Republicans finally got a backbone – though temporarily – and drew a line in the sand: if they did not get confirmation votes on Bush's appointees, they were going to invoke what was affectionately termed the nuclear option.

Currently, for an issue or appointee can make it to the floor of the Senate for a vote, at least 60 senators have to be in favor. It wasn't always this way. It used to be you needed only a simple majority. Even a 50-50 tie would be okay because the Vice President of the United States serves as the president of the Senate and casts the tie-breaking vote. However, when the Democrats had their short-lived control of the Senate, they changed this to the 60 vote rule. Thanks, Tom Daschle.

When Bush's appointees kept getting met with filibusters, as I stated, the Republicans drew the line and threatened to invoke the nuclear, or Constitutional option. The Democrats didn't like that one bit, because if it was removed as a viable channel to opposing appointees and bills, what would they do in the future? So they came to an agreement. Seven Democrats and seven Republicans made a deal that would keep the nuclear option intact as long as the Democrats would confirm Bush's appointees – except in the cases of "extraordinary circumstances."

I really wonder what constitutes "extraordinary circumstances." Knowing the liberals, it will be any candidate that even remotely resembles a conservative. In reality, through his actions on domestic policies, Bush has revealed himself as a liberal, and the liberals can't stand him. Kind of makes you wonder who they would like...oh, yeah, anyone to the left of Karl Marx.

Now on to the main point for this cartoon. On "Face the Nation" the following Sunday after O'Connor's announcement, Democrat Senator Joe Biden was stating how the Democrats could invoke the "extraordinary circumstances" clause on Janice Rogers Brown just after they had just confirmed her to the D.C. court of appeals. Biden responded that appellate court judges "don't get to make new law."

I don't know about Sen. Biden's copy of the Constitution, but mine says that only the legislative branch of our tri-cameral government that can introduce and make new law(s) is the Legislative branch. Maybe since the Democrats have no power in the government – Republicans control the Congress and the Executive Branch – they feel the only way they can achieve their agenda is through activism – or legislation – from the judicial bench.

* It's really kind of odd that this is the only issue on which liberals are pro-choice. Are they for the right to choose to keep the money you pay to government every year – in the form of Social Security taxes – and invest it in the retirement account of your choice? No. Do they support the right to choose what kind of handgun or firearm you want to purchase? No. Do they want parents to be able to choose which schools they send their children to with school vouchers? No.

Hmmm. Some pro-choice crowd they are.