The Dark Motive Behind the Democrat Filibuster

NewsMax ^ | 11/14/03 | Jerry Falwell

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

As I write this column, a dramatic debate is taking place in the Senate chamber.

The "Justice for Judges" debate initiated by Republicans began Wednesday evening as a last-ditch effort to compel filibustering Senate Democrats to allow a vote on four of President Bush's judicial nominees.

Democrats have refused to allow a vote on these four well-qualified nominees largely because they embrace a Judeo-Christian perspective in their personal lives.

It's important to note that several other Bush nominees face potential filibustering by Democrats in the near future. This type of filibuster has never before taken place in the Senate.

During the Senate debate, Democrats have used phrases such as "fair and balanced," "political mainstream" and "an independent judiciary," but it is painfully clear that the Democrats are adamant in refusing a vote on the nominations of individuals who do not toe the traditional Democrat line – because of their religious faith – on abortion rights. The legal merits of these individuals have been completely ignored.

Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., noted on Thursday morning that there is a "double standard being imposed by Democrats" against these very competent justices.

The reason for the filibuster is obvious. It is a precursor to the likely Supreme Court nomination process that the next president will likely face.

If President Bush wins re-election – which appears quite likely considering his meager opposition – Senate Democrats want to send a clear message that they will not accept a future U.S. Supreme Court nominee who has deeply held religious beliefs, specifically on abortion.

That's a frightening proposition. In essence, the Democrats are saying that evangelical Christians and conservative Catholics need not apply for judicial posts. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., called this notion "religious McCarthyism" on Thursday, but I believe the charge is appropriate.

The action by the Democrats is stark partisanism – and ultimately religious persecution – at its ugliest.

On the Senate floor, Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., specifically noted that the Democrats have established a "litmus test" to defy appellate nominees holding personal religious beliefs that counter the political agenda of the Democrats.

Mr. Gregg said he could actually sign on to a litmus test that determined whether a nominated justice was honest, fair, intelligent or had proper experience. But he charged that the Democrats' "fundamentally wrong" litmus test says that if a justice has an individual belief that contradicts Democrat standards on issues like abortion, he/she will be stringently opposed.

Sen. Gregg said that under this type of philosophy it is likely that every judicial nominee who subscribes to the Judeo-Christian faith – even those who have made it clear that these views do not affect their judicial decisions – will not be confirmed.

Sen. Gregg called this "extreme prejudice."

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., also identified the "secularization of America" that is involved in this action.

I fully agree with these men.

It is glaringly clear that the Democrats have drawn a line in the sand that is designed to tell President Bush that no religious conservatives will be accepted by their party. This political war will be even uglier if President Bush has the opportunity to appoint a conservative Catholic, evangelical Christian or pro-life Jew to the U.S. Supreme Court.

I pray that he has the chance to do just that ... several times.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., has charged that "only a far-right, extremist militant" would make the charges I've made in this column and that a few senators have made on the Senate floor.

But Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., hardly a member of the alleged vast right-wing conspiracy, thankfully arose to challenge Mr. Schumer's wild accusation, noting that he believes the four nominees deserve the respect of a Senate vote.

I encourage readers who have senators who have opposed a vote for President Bush's qualified nominees to contact them via e-mail today. Considerately encourage them to allow a vote on the four nominees. You may find your senators' e-mail addresses by visiting this site: http://www.senate.gov/index.htm

A Must-See Movie About Jesus, Now Showing in Theaters

"The Gospel of John," a major motion picture called "thought-provoking entertainment" by the Associated Press, is now showing in theaters in Lynchburg and throughout Virginia.

I recently had the opportunity to view the film, and it made a tremendous impression on me.

Several things particularly excite me about "The Gospel of John." First, the script is a word-for-word adaptation of the entire Gospel of John (American Bible Society's "Good News" Translation).

Second, the film has obviously been produced with the highest professional standards. "The Gospel of John" has received rave reviews from Christian leaders as well as media outlets, including The New York Times, Variety, The Hollywood Reporter and The Associated Press.

The National Association of Evangelicals has given the film its first ever "Seal of Approval" for excellence. In fact, "The Gospel of John" garnered the highest per-screen dollar average of any film playing during its U.S. premiere and is going strong as it rolls out across the country.

I would be proud to take anyone, Christian or non-Christian, to see this movie.

If the film is successful in the theaters, the producers plan to make more like it. It is up to us – Christian consumers – to ensure that this film is successful. This is a wonderful opportunity to support a film that provides wholesome, high-quality entertainment for our families.

In

addition, this film, and more like it, would be a powerful educational and enlightenment tool to bring others into the Kingdom of God and can serve to deepen the understanding of those who already believe.

If you have not seen the movie and are interested in seeing it, please check your local listings or visit http://www.GospelofJohntheFilm.com to find out where the film will be playing. Please spread the word about this important film by telling your friends and family.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Time to change the filibuster rules. BTW, a filibuster is not allowed on a vote to change the Senate rules.

[Pylot]

I am afraid that the real cowards in this filibuster non sense are the republicans.

A single up and down vote to change the rules and all of this filibustering becomes a mute point.

But the true gutless wonders of this are the Republicans who consistently allow themselves to be bullied by a minority of Democrats.

[Enterprise]

I question if Republicans still do not understand why the RATS fight so hard to control the Federal Judiciary, and I question why the Republicans do not fight even harder for that control.

[TedsGarage]

Wonder how Falwell would feel about a devout Muslim appointed to the judiciary.

[My2Cents]

Putzy Schumer says that the reasons the Dems have obstructed the 4 (make it 5 when Janice Brown's nomination goes to the floor) judges is that they are outside the "mainstream" of America. This begs the question: Who really defines what's "mainstream" and what isn't? Does the Senate Democratic caucus have the right to define what's "mainstream" in America? I would hope not. Actually, it makes sense that the Senate, in its entirety, decide whether any said judicial nominees is "mainstream" or not. I mean, if the Dems won't allow the entire Senate to vote a nominee up or down, they really can't make the "they're-not-mainstream" argument, because the majority of the Senate would disagree with them.

[Enterprise]

I agree! It is time to end the nonsense, change the rules, and pack the Federal Judiciary with solid right wing judges. The Democrats have held the Federal Judiciary hostage to their degenerate standards for decades. Break that grip now!

[My2Cents]

If a devout Muslim was nominated, and his record on previous courts showed he was a respecter of the rule and letter of the law and the Constitution, I doubt Jerry Falwell would have a problem at all. As a conservative evangelical Christian, I would have no problem with that kind of nominee.

[doingtherightthing]

I agree! It is time to end the nonsense, change the rules, and pack the Federal Judiciary with solid right wing judges.

That sounds great and I agree with you, but as it stands right now the Republicans do not have enough of their own who will vote for the rule change--it's so pathetic.

[Gritty]

It is glaringly clear that the Democrats have drawn a line in the sand that is designed to tell President Bush that no religious conservatives will be accepted by their party.

Little wonder.

These are corrupt and crooked little people. They do not want honest judges.

[Enterprise]

Sad but true. The pantyism of the right is dwarfed by the fanaticism of the left.

[wimpycat]

If you ask me, this whole thing is driven by the abortion issue. They don't want any judge anywhere near enough to the Supreme Court who would give even a breath of a hint that they would even consider overturning Roe v. Wade. That one earlier Supreme Court decision is the only thing standing between them and giving the power to choose how to handle the issue of abortion back to the individual states. The environmentalist wackos and civil rights activists don't have an issue that is one Supreme Court decision away from being blown out of the water. So whose legitimacy is the most threatened by strict constructionists? The pro-abortion activists, whose legitimacy was created out of judicial dust. Out of all the left-wing radical special interest groups, who is the most likely to go to any lengths to keep themselves in business? The pro-abortion activists.

They won't say it, they'll never admit it, but I'm convinced that theirs is the mentality to tear down every Constitutional process in order to protect their agenda.

[FreeReign]

That sounds great and I agree with you, but as it stands right now the Republicans do not have enough of their own who will vote for the rule change--it's so pathetic.

Spector is on board. What R's aren't?

[randita]

Abortion, affirmative action and separation of church and state issues are all Democrat litmus tests for judges. Their main consituency groups hold their feet to the fire on these issues.

[FreeReign]

If you ask me, this whole thing is driven by the abortion issue.

IMO, this entire thing is driven by statists who hate the Constitution and everything it stands for. The pro-abortion rhetoric is just a means to a endpoint -- their power and our loss of freedom.

[kimoajax]

This whole nominations fight has the feel of theater to me. It could be solved but for some methinks political reason (much like the partial birth ban was) being drawn out by Republicans on purpose to some end I don't quite see yet.

Will the Dems suffer the loss of some consituentcy or will some will this motivate some Republican constituency?

Usually campaigns are won or loss by one side or the other being able to frame a central or pivotal question in front of the voters. I think this judicial fight holds the potential to nationalize the relative importance of every Senate and congressional seat?

I know in a manner the Dems are viewing it this way...all one has to do is look at the NARAL tv adds of late to see the tie-in. But that those adds seem to only be targeted to their base.

Perhaps the Republican leadership sees this as a way to motivate their social and religious conservative base. Important to do so since Hillary is not running and Clinton redux (Gore) isn't either.

[Clemenza]

Schumer is an EVIL, EVIL man who will win big time in 2004 thanks to the spinelesses of NY Republicans.

[Carry_Okie]

Time to change the filibuster rules. BTW, a filibuster is not allowed on a vote to change the Senate rules.

No, it's time for the President and the Senate to do their jobs and get the people to lean on the leftists.

A banking crash and the election of Hillary and you'll wish you had never said that.

[itsahoot]

I question why the Republicans do not fight even harder for that control.

Well Orin Hatch's support of Kennedy's hate crimes bill might be a hint.

[RGVTx]

Well said in both of your posts! It's not the religion that matters but their records of honor and honesty.

[thedilg]

"But the true gutless wonders of this are the Republicans who consistently allow themselves to be bullied by a minority of Democrats."

Amen! I heard a Republican defend their not using the so called nuclear option. (i.e. change Senate rules.) "We need to keep this option open for when the Rats get a majority in the Senate and the White House again."

Tell me folks, am I the only one that knows that the Rats could care less? They will exercise the nuclear option whenever it suites them. If the shoe was on the other foot the Rats would have exercised the option long ago.


Godspeed, The Dilg

[F16Fighter]

"Wonder how Falwell would feel about a devout Muslim appointed to the judiciary."

Hey Einstein -- Why don't you tell us just how many Muslims were involved in and contributed to developing our American Bill of Rights, Constitution, and legal system as had the ancestors and religious ilk of Jerry Fallwell?

OTOH, the contribution to the America -- including our judicial system -- by Islamic influences can be summarized thusly: "JACK-SQUAT"

[browardchad]

If a devout Muslim was nominated, and his record on previous courts showed he was a respecter of the rule and letter of the law and the Constitution

You really need to read about Islam; "devout Muslim" and "Constitution" are mutually exclusive. Hint: Sharia law.

[My2Cents]

You really think a guy who's devoted to Shari'a law would distinguish himself in a lower federal court such that he'd be nominated by Bush to a higher court? This is why these speculative questions are nonsense.

[Ethyl]

The demoncrapts are saying that minorities and women are not acceptable as Federal Judges. What are we going to do about that???????????????????

[Held_to_Ransom]

I agree! It is time to end the nonsense, change the rules, and pack the Federal Judiciary with solid right wing judges. The Democrats have held the Federal Judiciary hostage to their degenerate standards for decades. Break that grip now!

That's the essence of the whole thing, isn't it? Who will get to pack the court. Such a noble thing all around.

[victim soul]

The Democrats have ceded to the liberal death wish.

They champion death to the unborn and disabled.

Their champion, Howard Dean, served on a Planned Parenthood Board for several years and supports physician assisted suicide.

[Enterprise]

The essence of this debate is that President Bush is perfectly free to pack the courts - as long as the Democrats agree. But then, that has been the case for decades. Any President has been free to pack the courts - as long as the Democrats agree.

[My back yard]

ping to my favorite cubicle guys.

[I_dmc]

It appears obvious that the only viable solution is to have 60 Republican Senators.

[ripley]

marxist mcarthyism of the future; "madam, are you now or have you ever been a christian?" (the lions are in the arena, right now.)

[F16Fighter]

"It appears obvious that the only viable solution is to have 60 Republican Senators."

The re-defining of the now euphemistic term "mainstream" by Democrats -- as others have alluded to -- is codified to mean only ONE thing: Enforcing a thinly-veiled policy of sanctioned discrimination against those judges (remember John Ashcroft's hearings?) holding Christian/anti-abortion positions...

Unfortunately, the other "viable solution" to "holding the fort" -- so-to-speak -- appears to be nothing short of waging 'Civil War II.'

[Blood of Tyrants]

But you have to give them a bit of credit here. First, there is no guarantee that the RINOs will go along with a rules change. Second, this is an excellent tactic to bring light on the Rats obstructionist tactics and hopefully force a few of them to back down and allow the vote.

[I_dmc]

The re-defining of the now euphemistic term "mainstream" by Democrats -- as others have alluded to -- is codified to mean only ONE thing: Enforcing a thinly-veiled policy of sanctioned discrimination against those judges (remember John Ashcroft's hearings?) holding Christian/anti-abortion positions...

I'm not so sure.  I honestly believe its more, "We have held the country in our power for 40 years or more, as it should be.  We should always do so, because we know what the country really needs.  We are so much more intelligent than those idiot Republicans and their ilk.  Now that our power is slipping, we will do anything, even commit treason to regain our power."

[F16Fighter]

"I honestly believe its more, 'We have held the country in our power for 40 years or more, as it should be. We should always do so, because we know what the country really needs. We are so much more intelligent than those idiot Republicans and their ilk. Now that our power is slipping, we will do anything, even commit treason to regain our power.'"

Well yeah -- that too ;-)

[VOA]

The Dark Motive Behind the Democrat Filibuster

I don't even need to read the article to answer the question.

The DARK MOTIVE is very clear and simple:
Simply to destroy 4000 years of Jewish morality (and it's offspring, 2000 years of
Christian morality).

Destroy those twin forces...NOW THAT'S REAL POWER.

That will give you bragging rights when you meet Nero, Caligula, Hitler, Stalin and lots of
your fellow-travelers in a lake of flames.
That might even make an eternity in Hades moderately tolerable.

What else could explain educated people like Chuck Schumer, Gun-Slinger Feinstein,
and their pack of fellow-travelers PUBLICALLY admitting they won't allow an UP-OR-DOWN
vote on PEOPLE OF COLOR because they MIGHT...MIGHT be against the slicing, dicing and
juelienne-frying of viable, whole humans in the womb?

I respect the Democratic Senate Obstructionists. They are MUCH slicker than the
radical Islamicists in their obedience to a code of power and ruthless death
to their opponents.
Especially the most innocent and powerless ones.

It's sad that Dante Aligheri isn't around now to explain this current
Divine Comedy to the masses.

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

Read the article, it is very legitimate focusing on the facts which tattoo the party as truly hypocritical.

[hosepipe]

[ But the true gutless wonders of this are the Republicans who consistently allow themselves to be bullied by a minority of Democrats. ]

Exactely!
Democrats believe that big government works and Republicans do not, and Republicans prove it everytime they get elected'- PJ O'Rourke

[VOA]

Read the article,

thanks for the nudge -- it does hit the right notes...

[browardchad]

You really think a guy who's devoted to Shari'a law would distinguish himself in a lower federal court such that he'd be nominated by Bush to a higher court? This is why these speculative questions are nonsense.

My comment was not speculative, nor was it a question.

Regarding your question, the obsessive push for “diversity” in our society has created more than one situation where a candidate’s ethnic minority status, rather than objective qualifications, has been the determinant. (BTW, I am not relating this to Bush, that was your inference.) And, of course, there’s always "Taqiyyeh/taqiyya/kitman" (Arabic for a process of concealment of true beliefs to confuse the enemy)

This page explains taqiyya and kitman’s use by Islamic terrorists, but it doesn’t take a giant leap of intellect to imagine how this principle could be used in political/judicial office:

Taqiyya and kitman: The role of Deception in Islamic terrorism

For further reading, I suggest perusing the goals of the Islamic Political Party of America – clever kitman, that.