Wednesday, May 25, 2005
Liberals' judgment on Judicial Nominees should not be trusted
Ted Kennedy's argument against the Souter nomination in 1990.
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Good analysis of the filibuster deal...
over atBench Memos. Read on. Also, note that MoveOn.org is declaring victory, as is the DSCC (now owned by Moveon). That should tell us something about whether or not this deal is worth the paper its written on.
Monday, May 23, 2005
Asymetrical Joke
This "deal" is unacceptable because it (a) does not call for an up or down vote in the cases of all nominees; (b) wildly misinterprets the advice and consent clause, effectively moving it from Article II to Article I by demanding that the Senate have a say in the "nomination" process, rather than in the appointment process (yes, there is a distinction); (c) upholds the filibuster as an acceptable response to judicial nominees (when it has not been for over 200 years); (d) allows the Dems for filibuster in "extraordinary circumstances" and we all know what that means, but the GOP can't go nuclear in this Congress even if the Dems filibuster in ordindary circumsances; and (e) had the GOP invoked the nuclear option it would have got all of the nominees voted on, cleared the way for the SCOTUS nominations to be voted on, and demonstrated that the GOP is ready for leading a majority in this country. In other words, yes the GOP got its best nominees through, but short-lived gain for long term loss is not what I'd call a winning deal.
I'm really disappointed in Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. I thought he had a spine. McCain - goodbye presidential aspirations. Why would he work to weaken the office if he had such a high esteem of it? So liberals like him? Give me a break.
Update: Apparently this deal is based on the "trust and confidence" of the parties. Why on earth would any Republican rely on the good word of a Senate Democrat? Ok, trust, but where is the verify!
I'm really disappointed in Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. I thought he had a spine. McCain - goodbye presidential aspirations. Why would he work to weaken the office if he had such a high esteem of it? So liberals like him? Give me a break.
Update: Apparently this deal is based on the "trust and confidence" of the parties. Why on earth would any Republican rely on the good word of a Senate Democrat? Ok, trust, but where is the verify!
Sunday, May 22, 2005
Saturday, May 21, 2005
Different modes of judicial nominee obstruction
This analysis shows where where most folks probably end up in the long run.
Friday, May 20, 2005
Right Wing Lies = The Truth
Lies from the "far right" are actually true.
A Boston health clinic has admitted to distributing pornographic books to middle school students and others at a Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) conference hosted by a Massachusetts high school. Initially GLSEN Boston categorically denied its recent 15th Annual Conference event at Brookline High School featured sexually explicit materials.
However, the Fenway Community Center health clinic has admitted to passing out copies of "The Little Black Book -- Queer in the 21st century," a graphic how-to manual on homosexual sex. The superintendent of Brookline Schools has also acknowledged that the sexually explicit materials were made available at the conference when they should not have been, and he has apologized for that fact.
Prior to the health clinic and the school system confirming the truth, GLSEN Boston's office had maintained that the allegations of pornographic books at its conference were "categorically untrue," and were nothing more than lies "from the far right." As late as yesterday, the chapter's website had a notice posted on its "news & announcements" page, stating that the group "wants to assure everyone that there were no sexually explicit materials at the conference."
Dirty Harry: reality bites
From Investor's Business Daily:
If Republicans roll back our rights in this chamber, there will be no check on their power,' [Reid] said. 'The radical right wing will be free to pursue any agenda they want. And not just on judges. Their power will be unchecked on Supreme Court nominees, the president's nominees in general and legislation like Social Security privatization.'
Taking those words at face value, Reid is saying that the Republican Party is a fringe group that must be stopped before it takes over. If he's right, then we're already in big trouble, since the GOP holds the presidency, the Senate, the House and the governorships of 28 states, representing 63% of the U.S. population.
Thursday, May 19, 2005
The Breakdown of Senate Comedy?
As I've said before, any deal that prevents a full up or down vote on judicial nominees is absolutely unacceptable. That being said, whoever said that the nuclear option will destroy Senate comedy (or was that comity?)?
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) said, 'If Republicans persist in the course they have set, they will destroy the 'compact of comity' that enables the Senate to fulfill its constitutional responsibilities.'Hilarious. I wonder if MoveOn.org thought the remark was out of bounds?
Such comity already appeared scarce late in the day, when Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) said Democrats have violated a long tradition of letting judicial nominees reach up-or-down confirmation votes.
He then denounced 'the audacity of some [Democratic] members to stand up and say, 'How dare you break this rule?' It's the equivalent of Adolf Hitler in 1942 saying, 'I'm in Paris. How dare you invade me?' ' Several liberal groups called the remarks out of bounds.
MSM reinvents history
Did Republicans filibuster Civil Rights legislation in the 50's and 60's? Actually no, they didn't, but that doesn't stop ABC from stating it.
The President's Power
Dan Dalthorp at Confirm Them lays out the argument that if the filibuster survives on judicial nominations that it will only result in mediocre "compromise" nominees that can pass muster in the Senate, and thus produce mediocrity on the court. The President was thus empowered to nominate "and with advice and consent of the Senate" appoint the judge. Its a pretty compelling argument.
Bob Dole Says Vote
Bob Dole provides a history lesson:
He concludes:
The claim Fortas was not confirmed due to a "filibuster" is off-base. A filibuster, commonly understood, occurs when a minority of senators prevents a majority from voting up-or-down on a matter by use or threat of permanent debate.If 24 Republicans and 19 Democrats isn't bipartisan, I don't know how to define that term. It certainly isn't the systematic denial by one party of up or down votes for nominees that have a majority of Senators supporting them.
That simply did not happen with Fortas, where the Senate debated the nomination's merits quite vigorously. Senators exposed the ethical issues involved and the widespread belief the vacancy had been manufactured for political purposes. They sought to use debate to persuade other senators the nomination should be defeated.
After less than a week, the Senate leadership tried to shut down debate. At that time, two-thirds of the senators voting were needed to do so, yet only 45 senators supported the motion. Of the 43 senators who still wished to debate the nomination, 24 were Republicans and 19 were Democrats.
He concludes:
For the first time, judicial nominees with clear majority support are denied an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor through an unprecedented use of the filibuster. This is not a misrepresentation of history; it's a fact.It is a fact despite Democrat spin (read: lies) to the contrary.
Charles Fried on Checks and Balances
Demagoguing the filibuster debate:
What then of checks and balances? That principle is a description of our constitutional structure, not a provision of the Constitution itself, where the term does not appear. In the debates of the constitutional convention and the Federalist, it describes the checking by one branch of government of the power and authority of another. Its use to describe the blocking power of a minority within one of the democratically elected branches -- rather than between them -- is therefore a rhetorical stretch. Remember that when used to prevent the Senate from voting on a nominee, the filibuster is not a device for assuring deliberation or second thoughts. It gives a Senate minority an absolute veto
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
Democrats go Nuclear
They shut down the Senate.
More on the Dem's hatred for Democracy in action:
More on the Dem's hatred for Democracy in action:
This is just one of the numerous times that an activist judge has put his/her stamp on overturning the Will of the People. Where does it stop? If the Democrats have their way, it won't. Don't like a law? The Dems will get it overturned. Doesn't help the Democratic agenda? See a judge.
Schmuck Chumer
What is ridiculous about Chuck Schumer's argument about the GOP being beholden to the "hard right" is his failure to mention his is providing him with his marching orders:
From the imfamous Democrat strategy memos as discussed in the Washington Times:
How about this:
And remember, it was a liberal professor's idea to block all of Bush's Supreme Court nominees out of hand before any were even nominated. It isn't difficult to see that filibuster would be and is being utilized because these are Bush nominee's, and not necessarily because their particular views, though of course those are objectionable to far left liberal Democrats like Schumer, Barbara Boxer, Patrick Leahy, and Hillary Clinton.
So Mr. Schumer. Forgive me if I don't take your arguments at face value.
From the imfamous Democrat strategy memos as discussed in the Washington Times:
The memos also reveal the close relationship between Democrats and the outside groups.So Mr. Schumer was coordinating nomination votes with outside groups, who are of course demanding that no Bush nominees get confirmed.
In a June 21, 2002, memo to Democrats Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Durbin, Sen. Charles E. Schumer of New York and Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington, a staffer urged delaying a hearing for Mr. Estrada to "give the groups time to complete their research and the committee time to collect additional information."
How about this:
These memos (.pdf) paint a real good picture of how these left wing activists groups like NOW, NAACP, NARAL, People for the American Way, are dictating Democratic strategy on Bush judicial nominees. And Senator Schumer, let's not pretend that groups like MoveOn aren't pushing the Democrat Senators to filibuster Bush nominees and are one of the biggest and most active Bush hating groups going.Ben Brandzel, advocacy director for Moveon.org's political action committee, said he does not believe Democratic leaders will compromise on preserving filibuster rights - but that it would not be well received by the online liberal group if they did.
"Our members are fired up about this," said Brandzel, whose group is planning to distribute leaflets at openings of the new "Star Wars" movie this week, carrying cell phones for people to use to call their senators while waiting in line.
And remember, it was a liberal professor's idea to block all of Bush's Supreme Court nominees out of hand before any were even nominated. It isn't difficult to see that filibuster would be and is being utilized because these are Bush nominee's, and not necessarily because their particular views, though of course those are objectionable to far left liberal Democrats like Schumer, Barbara Boxer, Patrick Leahy, and Hillary Clinton.
So Mr. Schumer. Forgive me if I don't take your arguments at face value.
Freedom of Democrats to Disagree
Senator Feinstin argues that the "Freedom to disagree" means that a minority of Senators get to obstruct the Senate's constitutional advise and consent role. She writes:
Senator Feinstein does not want that vote to occur because she knows she will lose. If her arguments had any credence and persuasiveness, then she wouldn't have to block the votes.
So, what does freedom to disagree mean to the Senator, MY Senator? Apparently, it means that Democrats have the freedom to disagree with Republicans and that freedom should be preserved at all costs. On the other hand, Republicans aren't permitted to exercise that freedom because Democrats are so pure and righteous and would never do anything for partisan advantage, but rather for the "good of the people." Give me a break. When Feinstein stays that she fears that the Senate might turn "into a body where might makes right," she is stating that she fears that the Senate will be governed by the majority. She didn't have that view when she was in the majority, but never we mind that. Republicans were put in charge of the Senate. Senator, you need to understand that.
She is afraid of voting, as are all the Democrats. Ultimately, this entire judicial debate is about voting and elections. The Democrats don't want there to be votes on these nominees so they block them. They don't want votes on abortion, gay rights, affirmative action, freedom of religion and speech, and the right to bear arms, or the proper scope of government power. The Democrats don't want votes on all of these things because they know that they'll lose. And the only way to ensure that these items do not get voted on is for the Courts to enshrine the liberal Democrat agenda into untouchable "precedent" and "rights" that their opponents cannot legislate around. Abortion is the prime example of this. When is that last time this critical and very important political issue was voted on? Not since 1972 when the Supreme Court ruled that this type of policy question was untouchable as it was found in the spectrum of light and dark between the shadows somewhere in a Constitutional right to privacy, that they themselves invented. Now, we argue and battle it out in the political arena over tangential issues like parental notification, but the ultimate question, the one of policy is untouchable. We are thus denied a vote.
Democrats are afraid that conservative judges will enshrine a conservative agenda into untouchable precedent, thereby completely eliminating any realistic hope of enacting the liberal agenda through the courts. But how is this different then a liberal court enshrining their agenda into law? Its not, so the Senator must be against these nominees because she knows she won't like the outcome of their decisions. For example, what happens if Roe v. Wade is overturned? The question goes to the states to vote on their preference, through referendums or via elected representatives. That's democracy, that's voting. That's the people expressing their will. Elections mean things, and as Senator Feinstein has demonstrated, her fear is of such things. Majority rules, not the other way around. This isn't about Senate comity or procedures and rules. This is about democracy, and its about time we started voting and accepting the consequences. That is how the system is designed to work. It doesn't work when the minority is allowed to dictate policy to the majority. I want my votes to mean something. I want my votes to be counted. I want the Senate to do its job and vote, either way on these judicial nominees. Just allow a vote. Senator, I am your constituent. Do your job and vote.
As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I evaluate each judicial nominee on a case-by-case basis and thoroughly examine his or her writings, opinions, statements, temperament and character. Over the years, we have had heated debates over judicial nominees. That debate, however, ensures that the Senate confirms the best-qualified candidates. I am deeply troubled when our legitimate differences over an individual's qualifications for a lifetime appointment to the federal bench are reduced to inflammatory rhetoric. I am even more concerned when rhetoric turns into open discussions about turning the Senate into a body where might makes right.Here, the Senate is ready and willing to confirm many nominees to the judiciary. So why aren't they? The answer is because Democrat Senators like Diane Feinstein are preventing an up or down vote on these nominees. Since when does the minority speak for the Senate? Never. Because the Senator has had these "heated debates" about the quality of judicial nominees, then there ought to be a resolution. May the best arguments win. If a nominee is so "extreme" or otherwise unqualified then let the Senator PERSUADE her colleagues of that. If she is right, then a bipartisan majority will vote against confirmation. At the end of the day, however, Senator Feinstein only has one vote, and her "right" and obligation is to exercise that vote. Her ultimate recourse in the debate about a nominee is to vote that person down. If a majority of her colleagues in the Senate vote to confirm, then the Senate has confirmed the nominee. If they don't then her arguments must have been persuasive. That's how representative democracy works, and that is how the Senate has worked since its inception until the Democrats started filibustering nominees. If the voters don't like who is confirmed, they can vote the bums out of office who confirmed them. Blaming Republicans for desiring a vote is ridiculous and anti-American.
Senator Feinstein does not want that vote to occur because she knows she will lose. If her arguments had any credence and persuasiveness, then she wouldn't have to block the votes.
So, what does freedom to disagree mean to the Senator, MY Senator? Apparently, it means that Democrats have the freedom to disagree with Republicans and that freedom should be preserved at all costs. On the other hand, Republicans aren't permitted to exercise that freedom because Democrats are so pure and righteous and would never do anything for partisan advantage, but rather for the "good of the people." Give me a break. When Feinstein stays that she fears that the Senate might turn "into a body where might makes right," she is stating that she fears that the Senate will be governed by the majority. She didn't have that view when she was in the majority, but never we mind that. Republicans were put in charge of the Senate. Senator, you need to understand that.
She is afraid of voting, as are all the Democrats. Ultimately, this entire judicial debate is about voting and elections. The Democrats don't want there to be votes on these nominees so they block them. They don't want votes on abortion, gay rights, affirmative action, freedom of religion and speech, and the right to bear arms, or the proper scope of government power. The Democrats don't want votes on all of these things because they know that they'll lose. And the only way to ensure that these items do not get voted on is for the Courts to enshrine the liberal Democrat agenda into untouchable "precedent" and "rights" that their opponents cannot legislate around. Abortion is the prime example of this. When is that last time this critical and very important political issue was voted on? Not since 1972 when the Supreme Court ruled that this type of policy question was untouchable as it was found in the spectrum of light and dark between the shadows somewhere in a Constitutional right to privacy, that they themselves invented. Now, we argue and battle it out in the political arena over tangential issues like parental notification, but the ultimate question, the one of policy is untouchable. We are thus denied a vote.
Democrats are afraid that conservative judges will enshrine a conservative agenda into untouchable precedent, thereby completely eliminating any realistic hope of enacting the liberal agenda through the courts. But how is this different then a liberal court enshrining their agenda into law? Its not, so the Senator must be against these nominees because she knows she won't like the outcome of their decisions. For example, what happens if Roe v. Wade is overturned? The question goes to the states to vote on their preference, through referendums or via elected representatives. That's democracy, that's voting. That's the people expressing their will. Elections mean things, and as Senator Feinstein has demonstrated, her fear is of such things. Majority rules, not the other way around. This isn't about Senate comity or procedures and rules. This is about democracy, and its about time we started voting and accepting the consequences. That is how the system is designed to work. It doesn't work when the minority is allowed to dictate policy to the majority. I want my votes to mean something. I want my votes to be counted. I want the Senate to do its job and vote, either way on these judicial nominees. Just allow a vote. Senator, I am your constituent. Do your job and vote.
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
Extraordinary Circumstances
Dems offered a "deal" whereby they would not filibuster any nominees, except in "extraordinary circumstances", in exchange for the GOP not going nuclear and the withdrawal of all but a handful of the filibustered nominees. As I discussed, that's not a real deal, but the Dems weren't that clear under what circumstances they would resort to the filibuster. Well, here's a clarification on the definition of "extraordinary circumstances" means
'From what we have been told, Reid joked that it was like the old Clinton line about the meaning of the word 'is,'' says a Democratic leadership staffer. 'Basically, 'extraordinary' for the leadership would mean any Supreme Court justice nomination that was not approved beforehand by the minority leader and ranking Democrat on Judiciary.'"SO, the circumstances under which the Dems would NOT filibuster are those that the Democrat's Senate leadership approves (a role not even in the living constitution). A: that's not a deal. B: That's not Constitutional. C: Republicans have won the last several elections and are the majority party. To the Dems: forget it. To the GOP: enforce the will of the majority of voters, NOW!
I'm So Proud
If you google "Barbara Boxer idiot" my blog comes up first.
"I'd like to thank all the little people who made this day possible..."
"I'd like to thank all the little people who made this day possible..."
Harvard to Spend $50 million to discriminate
Harvard will spend $50 million to "increase diversity" and create "a new post - Senior Vice Provost for Diversity and Faculty Development - who will be tasked with overseeing faculty recruitment with an eye on increasing the ranks of women and minorities."
We ALL know what that means: $50 million dollars to find new and creative ways to discriminate against whites, asians, and any other "overrepresented" groups. Do these people realize what they are doing? Unfortunately, the answer is yes.
Roger Clegg's response.
We ALL know what that means: $50 million dollars to find new and creative ways to discriminate against whites, asians, and any other "overrepresented" groups. Do these people realize what they are doing? Unfortunately, the answer is yes.
Roger Clegg's response.
More on "Mainstream" Judges
In the judge context, as it has been played out in the Senate, the mainstream should be defined as the whatever 51 Senators say it is, but the inverse is true as well. If a nominee is so out of the "mainstream" as I or anyone as defined it, if that nominee is so "extreme" in their legal philosophy, then Senator of both parties should recognize that and vote down the nominee.
Since that hasn't happened, it is telling, that the objection to these nominees isn't based completely on their philosophies, though that may be partly true, but the objection to these nominees is based on politics. Democrats don't think that President Bush ought to be able to appoint federal judges because he IS George W. Bush and was "selected, not elected" and despite his RE-election, the people who voted for him are right-wing Christian rubes from Jesusland, and THOSE people should not have a say in who gets nominated to the judiciary and THOSE people's political desires ought to be thwarted because THOSE people don't count to the liberal elitests who have had their personal policy preferences dictated by unelected judges for 70 years.
Actually, when one considers the view of the judiciary that the lefties have, their reaction is appropos. If the judiciary is the place where policy preferences are enshrined into untouchable LAW and removed from the democratic process, then of course, lifetime appointments to these positions ought to require 60 votes. The left fears that conservatives will have their policy preferences enshrined and untouchable for the next 70 years and there will no recourse through the democratic process to undo what the courts have done.
The Dems filibuster arguments don't make sense logically, but their reaction makes sense because they view the courts as the great ruling judiciarchy.
Since that hasn't happened, it is telling, that the objection to these nominees isn't based completely on their philosophies, though that may be partly true, but the objection to these nominees is based on politics. Democrats don't think that President Bush ought to be able to appoint federal judges because he IS George W. Bush and was "selected, not elected" and despite his RE-election, the people who voted for him are right-wing Christian rubes from Jesusland, and THOSE people should not have a say in who gets nominated to the judiciary and THOSE people's political desires ought to be thwarted because THOSE people don't count to the liberal elitests who have had their personal policy preferences dictated by unelected judges for 70 years.
Actually, when one considers the view of the judiciary that the lefties have, their reaction is appropos. If the judiciary is the place where policy preferences are enshrined into untouchable LAW and removed from the democratic process, then of course, lifetime appointments to these positions ought to require 60 votes. The left fears that conservatives will have their policy preferences enshrined and untouchable for the next 70 years and there will no recourse through the democratic process to undo what the courts have done.
The Dems filibuster arguments don't make sense logically, but their reaction makes sense because they view the courts as the great ruling judiciarchy.
Monday, May 16, 2005
Who decides what is 'mainstream' jurisprudence?
Apparently left wing senators get to decide. Editorials like this one are useless to the debate.
As to the question of who decides what is "mainstream" we should look at the system, how it is set up and hopefully it will provide an answer. In this country (Hint: Its in the name of the newspaper), a majority of the elected representatives to the US Senate decide whether or not a nominee is qualified and should be approved (or consented to). For over 200 years, if a majority of Senators voted to approve a nominee, that person was then appointed by the President to his or her judicial post. In America, we can safely say that "mainstream" ought to defined by the majority, not the minority.
This lapse of logic by USA Today (and other making the pro-filibuster argument) stems from a lack of understanding, not just of our Constitution (I'm being generous, willful distortion may be a more accurate description) but of the Separation of Powers embedded in our Constitution. Some have argued, that the filibuster rule exists to ensure a separation of powers so as to avoid one party rule and protect minority rights. This is simply wrong. The Founders sought to separate powers so as to make it more difficult for government to do all things because they understood that the more government acted, the more freedom was lost. That is why they pitted each branch against each other. The Constitution does call for certain interaction between the branches as the mode of accomplishing government acts. Here, the Senate is a check on the President.
Separation of powers, and checks and balances, in the Constitutional scheme does not mean to separate one party from too much power. There weren't political parties when the constitution was written. God knows that for most of the past century, the Democratic party held majorities in both Houses of Congress and often held the presidency. It was often said that there was de facto one party rule. They weren't worried about separation of powers then. Separation of powers means that the other branches of government check each other. If the a majority of the Senate approve of a nominee, then the Senate approves. That's how this has worked for over 200 years. If changing the filibuster rule is required to revert to that system, then so be it.
The Democrats clearly don't like being in the minority, not after so many years of "one party rule". But really their aversion to these nominees is not that won't respect the "broad mainstream of established law" but rather that these nominees may write opinions and make judgments that Democrats/Lefties/Liberals don't like. That looks like policy shopping to me, and after 70 years of liberal leaning judges rewriting the constitution from the bench to enact an agenda that can't get passed democratically, Democrats' new found fealty to history, traditions, the constitution and established law comes up a little short. Hopefully, so will their efforts to block judges that will actually pay attention to those things.
So who should be confirmed? The Constitution gives the Senate joint responsibility, with the president, for the selection of judges. The standard should be whether a nominee's legal philosophy is within the broad mainstream of established law. Even Democratic leaders concede that at least two of the disputed seven (Griffin and McKeague) meet that minimal test. The records of some of the others, notably Brown and Owen, are more problematic, particularly in their willingness to challenge settled law.ONE of the problems with this type of logic, that only nominee's within the "broad mainstream of established law" ought to be concerned, is the question of who decides what "mainstream" means. According to the Editorial board at USA Today, mainstream is defined as a few Democrats joining Republicans to approve a nominee. Now, there are several Democrats in the Senate who will vote for the Bush nominees, Ben Nelson of Nebraska being one, and there are apparently others who will as well. Why does Barbara Boxer get to decide what "mainstream" is? Surely that thought bothers millions of people around the country who didn't vote for her and never would.
As to the question of who decides what is "mainstream" we should look at the system, how it is set up and hopefully it will provide an answer. In this country (Hint: Its in the name of the newspaper), a majority of the elected representatives to the US Senate decide whether or not a nominee is qualified and should be approved (or consented to). For over 200 years, if a majority of Senators voted to approve a nominee, that person was then appointed by the President to his or her judicial post. In America, we can safely say that "mainstream" ought to defined by the majority, not the minority.
This lapse of logic by USA Today (and other making the pro-filibuster argument) stems from a lack of understanding, not just of our Constitution (I'm being generous, willful distortion may be a more accurate description) but of the Separation of Powers embedded in our Constitution. Some have argued, that the filibuster rule exists to ensure a separation of powers so as to avoid one party rule and protect minority rights. This is simply wrong. The Founders sought to separate powers so as to make it more difficult for government to do all things because they understood that the more government acted, the more freedom was lost. That is why they pitted each branch against each other. The Constitution does call for certain interaction between the branches as the mode of accomplishing government acts. Here, the Senate is a check on the President.
Separation of powers, and checks and balances, in the Constitutional scheme does not mean to separate one party from too much power. There weren't political parties when the constitution was written. God knows that for most of the past century, the Democratic party held majorities in both Houses of Congress and often held the presidency. It was often said that there was de facto one party rule. They weren't worried about separation of powers then. Separation of powers means that the other branches of government check each other. If the a majority of the Senate approve of a nominee, then the Senate approves. That's how this has worked for over 200 years. If changing the filibuster rule is required to revert to that system, then so be it.
The Democrats clearly don't like being in the minority, not after so many years of "one party rule". But really their aversion to these nominees is not that won't respect the "broad mainstream of established law" but rather that these nominees may write opinions and make judgments that Democrats/Lefties/Liberals don't like. That looks like policy shopping to me, and after 70 years of liberal leaning judges rewriting the constitution from the bench to enact an agenda that can't get passed democratically, Democrats' new found fealty to history, traditions, the constitution and established law comes up a little short. Hopefully, so will their efforts to block judges that will actually pay attention to those things.
I Hope the GOP elites are paying attention to this
Judges' financial info sought by opposition research group sponsored by abortion industry activists (NARAL).
Friday, May 13, 2005
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Primary voters will be watching
From the New Hampshire Union Leader:
But if the Republicans don't wise up and have the guts to stop the Democrats' current misuse of the filibuster, they will find that a President Hillary Clinton and her pals will have no such problem in suddenly 'discovering' that the Founding Fathers never intended judges or other Presidential appointments to be blocked in this manner.
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
Frist plans to use 'option' on nomination of Owen
Apparently, Bill Frist will use the [fill in the blank] "option" later this month on Priscilla Owen's nomination. That's good news, but what are you waiting for!
No Deals!
Byron York discuss a couple of the "deals" currently being floated to end the filibusters. Some in the GOP are willing to discard the principle that all nominees deserve an up or down vote. That is really disgusting. The President's nominees deserve up or down votes, period. Any "deal" or "compromise" that does not embrace that principle is not worth the time of day. Its time for the GOP to exert its will over the Dems and stop playing the fool.
Monday, May 09, 2005
Ooh! Where do I sign up?
Senators Trent Lott (God bless his soul) and Ben Nelson are supposedly working on a compromise to the filibuster fiasco. In this particular deal, Republicans bend over and take it from the Democrats on the judges, while Democrats promise to give it to the Republicans, and not filibuster any nominees except the ones they don't like. Really, can Senator Lott actually be serious about this "plan?" The "compromise" supposedly allows floor votes on 4 of the blocked nominees (which ones will likely to be chosen by the Democrats).
If it isn't clear to Senator Lott, or other spineless GOP Senators who claim to support ALL nominees getting a floor vote, but apparently don't want to actually do anything about it, if you don't want to lead, get the heck out of the way and lets get someone in there who will. Its time for the GOP to force its will and overpower the Democrats on this issue. This filibustering has gotten out of hand and no deal that allows it to continue is worth the paper its written on.
The Dems are making fools out of the Senate GOP. If the Republicans were doing the same thing to the Democrats, does anyone think that they would allow it to go on for one second? Heck no! The Dems would pound the GOP down into oblivion in the bat of an eye - "minority rights" be damned!
Memo to the GOP in the Senate: The only acceptable "compromise" is one whereby the filibuster is eliminated for judicial nominees and all nominees get an up or down vote by the full Senate. Understand?
The potential deal, spearheaded by Sens. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), would involve at least a half-dozen Senators from each party signing a letter or memorandum of understanding that signals how they would proceed to vote on all matters related to judicial nominations.A memorandum of understanding? Does Senator Lott actually think that this so-called memorandum would bind the Democrats to this promise? That's not even the best part. This is:
Perhaps more importantly, the six Democrats would pledge to vote for cloture to end filibuster attempts on all other judicial nominees named by President Bush, including Supreme Court picks, except in “extreme circumstances,” according to a senior aide familiar with the discussions.Since Senate Democrats are already saying that the blocked nominees are too "extreme" for their liking, and thus, they argue, deserve to be filibustered, what makes Senator Lott think that any nominee put forward by this president, especially a Supreme Court nominee, would NOT be considered an extreme circumstance to the Senate Democrats? In fact, "extreme circumstance" as defined by Democrats, mean "nominated by President Bush"? Let's get real, people. Any nominee by Bush will be called an extremist who wants to reinstate slavery, force women into incubation camps, throw Jews into ovens, make everyone go to church, and commit the other items on the list of "turn back the clock" atrocities that conservatives supposedly desire. Enough howling by lefty pressure groups like MoveOn, NOW, and PFAW, and the Senate Dems will find that the circumstance is extreme. Otherwise, George W. Hitler might get to appoint a supreme court justice. Oh! The horror! An elected president appointing supreme court justices! What is the world coming to?
If it isn't clear to Senator Lott, or other spineless GOP Senators who claim to support ALL nominees getting a floor vote, but apparently don't want to actually do anything about it, if you don't want to lead, get the heck out of the way and lets get someone in there who will. Its time for the GOP to force its will and overpower the Democrats on this issue. This filibustering has gotten out of hand and no deal that allows it to continue is worth the paper its written on.
The Dems are making fools out of the Senate GOP. If the Republicans were doing the same thing to the Democrats, does anyone think that they would allow it to go on for one second? Heck no! The Dems would pound the GOP down into oblivion in the bat of an eye - "minority rights" be damned!
Memo to the GOP in the Senate: The only acceptable "compromise" is one whereby the filibuster is eliminated for judicial nominees and all nominees get an up or down vote by the full Senate. Understand?
Friday, May 06, 2005
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
Unbelievable
From The American Spectator
"It is amazing just how twisted and intellectually vacant the Democrats' arguments in the judicial nominations debate have become. And it is amazing that any self-respecting person in the news media can report these arguments with a straight face. But as has become very clear over the past several years, the Democratic Party, and its allies in the media, have no shame."What amazes me is that anyone in the GOP is actually afraid to confront these hollowbrained Dems head on. The Senate Dems have gotten away with this crap for too long. Its time to return some sanity to the US Senate. Majority rules!
Political clash looms as Rehnquist nears retirement
This article comes as close as I've seen to nailing the primary reason that the Democrat's fillibuster in the Senate needs to be ended now, and at least before there is a vacancy on the Supreme Court. The article notes that because of the Chief Justice's looming and expected retirement, the fillibuster of a SCOTUS nominee could be in the offing. "Mark Tushnet, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, said Democrats" won't likely fillibuster Rehnquist's successor because it wouldn't tip the balance of the court, though of course they will oppose whoever is nominated.
I disagree. The lefty pressure groups like People for the American Way, NOW and NARAL, MoveOn.org, and American United For Separation of Church and State will all want the nominee to be fillibustered. So far they've had their way with Senate Democrats supporting fillibusters. The question on a SCOTUS nominee would be whether or not the Senate Dems could resist the pressure to fillibuster. I don't think they have it in them.
That the Senate Dems would probably fillibuster a SCOTUS nominee, provides another explanation of why they were so eager to "compromise" with the GOP on the appellate court nominees last week. All of their proposals left open the option of fillibustering future nominees to any appellate court, including the Supreme Court.
For this reason, it is imperative that the Senate GOP, led by Bill Frist, exercise the nuclear or nucular or constitutional or Byrd option and end the fillibustering of judicial nominees now. Anything less will lead to a SCOTUS nominee being fillibustered, and that would be disasterous for the GOP. We put you in charge to run the country because we don't trust Democrats to do that. Failure to do so will lead to your demise. As I said before, why bother voting to put the GOP in charge if they let the minority Dems tell them what to do.
I disagree. The lefty pressure groups like People for the American Way, NOW and NARAL, MoveOn.org, and American United For Separation of Church and State will all want the nominee to be fillibustered. So far they've had their way with Senate Democrats supporting fillibusters. The question on a SCOTUS nominee would be whether or not the Senate Dems could resist the pressure to fillibuster. I don't think they have it in them.
That the Senate Dems would probably fillibuster a SCOTUS nominee, provides another explanation of why they were so eager to "compromise" with the GOP on the appellate court nominees last week. All of their proposals left open the option of fillibustering future nominees to any appellate court, including the Supreme Court.
For this reason, it is imperative that the Senate GOP, led by Bill Frist, exercise the nuclear or nucular or constitutional or Byrd option and end the fillibustering of judicial nominees now. Anything less will lead to a SCOTUS nominee being fillibustered, and that would be disasterous for the GOP. We put you in charge to run the country because we don't trust Democrats to do that. Failure to do so will lead to your demise. As I said before, why bother voting to put the GOP in charge if they let the minority Dems tell them what to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
