Supreme Court short list alert: James Harvie Wilkinson III

Terence P. Jeffrey, at Human Events Online, warns us to beware the middle-of-the-road conservative, a strange bird indeed.

“A Supreme Court judgeship is perhaps the closest our country has come to clothing mortals with deistic powers,” wrote James Harvie Wilkinson III in a 1974 book about clerking for Justice Lewis Powell.

In anticipation that Chief Justice William Rehnquist may retire, speculation abounds about which mortal President Bush may now offer these “deistic powers.”

The rumored “short list” features some stellar federal appellate judges with credible records as strict constructionists: Michael Luttig of the 4th Circuit, Edith Jones of the 5th, Samuel Alito of the 3rd, and Michael McConnell of the 10th.

Conservatives would be thrilled with any of these.

But another name gives pause. This is the same Harvie Wilkinson, who once marveled at the near-divine authority assumed by Supreme Court justices and who now sits, with Luttig, on the 4th Circuit.

“Democrats may view some conservative jurists as more palatable than others,” notes Congressional Quarterly. “If Rehnquist retires and Bush nominates a middle-of-the-road conservative, (Emphasis mine.) such as 4th Circuit appeals court Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, the confirmation process will probably be relatively easy.”

Much does recommend Wilkinson. He is lauded for a powerful mind, congenial manner, and elegant writing style. He graduated from Yale, was a law review editor at the University of Virginia Law School, became a popular professor there, and as editorial page editor of the Norfolk Virginian-Pilot wrote hard-hitting pieces against court-ordered busing and in favor of the death penalty.
So, what makes him “more palatable” to Democrats?
Well, in Gibbs v. Babbitt, Wilkinson ruled that the constitutional clause giving Congress power “to regulate commerce … among the several states,” justified a Fish and Wildlife Service regulation prohibiting North Carolina farmers from shooting red wolves when they threatened the farmers’ livestock on the farmers’ property after FWS “reintroduced” wolves in the state. “The relationship between red wolf takings and interstate commerce is quite direct,” opined Wilkinson, “with no red wolves, there will be no red-wolf related tourism, no scientific research, and no commercial trade in pelts.”
Judge Luttig, in a biting dissent, characterized Wilkinson’s desire to protect interstate trade in endangered-species pelts as “most humorous.” But Wilkinson was serious. He was exercising the almost deistic power of a judge almost on the Supreme Court.

Bad enough, but check out his opinion on the holy grail of totalitarians of all stripes:

“Although lifestyle freedoms are not expressly safeguarded, we believe that the spirit of the Constitution operates to protect them,” wrote Wilkinson and White. “We are aware of the historic dangers that attend judicial departure from specific constitutional mandates. Judging by inference from constitutional provisions, or from the Constitution as a whole, has plunged the Court into difficulties in the past. Notwithstanding textual and institutional difficulties, judicial recognition of lifestyle freedoms as due process liberties better serves the basic purposes of the Constitution than dismissal of them.”

Wilkinson, to be sure, expressly disagreed with his co-author’s analysis of whether the “spirit of the Constitution” might harbor a right to homosexual activity. “Mr. Wilkinson would uphold the state’s interest in the preservation of the traditional family,” the authors wrote, “Mr. White would desire stronger empirical proof that the state interest is truly put in jeopardy by homosexual practices among consenting adults.”

But Wilkinson’s and White’s joint analysis of abortion is eye-opening. “The right to procreate also suggests a right not to procreate. …,” they wrote. “Only in Roe v. Wade, however, did the right not to procreate gain firm recognition as a lifestyle decision. In upholding the right to abortion, the Court recognized that an unwanted child might create a ‘distressful life and future,’ with psychological, physical, and financial burdens for the woman concerned. Although Roe has been severely criticized, the decision is not an illogical extension of the Court’s earlier decisions in matters of intimate association. Indeed, if procreation is labeled a constitutional right, it may imply a full freedom of negative choice, in the same sense that marriage implies a full choice not to marry, voting not to vote, and travel to remain at home. For the constitutional right of procreation can hardly be fundamental if one is compelled to exercise it.”

Keep an eye on the Repansycan White House. This joker would make a perfect wimp-out choice. Remember Souter?