Posted on 03/08/2005 12:25:25 AM PST by The Great Yazoo
It is painfully ironic that we should be promoting the spread of democracy abroad when democracy is shrinking at home. Over the years, the outcomes of our elections have meant less and less, as judges have taken more and more decisions out of the hands of elected officials.
Judges have imposed their own notions on everything from school administration to gay marriage, and have ordered both state and federal agencies to spend billions of dollars to carry out policies favored by the judges or have even ordered a state legislature to raise taxes. This naked exercise of judicial power has been covered by the fig leaf of pretense to be "interpreting" laws and the Constitution by stretching and twisting words beyond recognition. The merits of the particular policies or expenditures is not the issue. The real issue is much bigger: Are the people to have the right to elect their own representatives to decide issues or are unelected judges to take over an ever-increasing share of the power to rule? This has happened gradually but steadily. Just as the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan referred to our growing acceptance of immoral behavior as "defining deviancy downward," so we have come to accept the steady erosion of democratic government as judges have defined democracy downward. While people in various countries in the Middle East are beginning to stir as they see democracy start to take root in Iraq, our own political system is moving steadily in the opposite direction, toward rule by unelected judicial ayatollahs, acting like the ayatollahs in Iran. That is what makes the impending Senate battle over judicial nominees something much bigger than a current political squabble or a clash of Senatorial egos. One way to stop the continuing erosion of the American people's right to govern themselves would be to appoint judges who follow the great Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' doctrine that his job was to see that the game is played by the rules, "whether I like them or not." Judges with that philosophy are anathema to liberal Democrats in the Senate today. They know that the only way many liberal policies can become law is by having them imposed by judges, because voters have increasingly rejected such policies and the candidates who espouse them. The Senate's Constitutional right and duty to "advise and consent" on the President's judicial nominees is being denied by a minority of Democratic Senators who refuse to let these nominees be voted on. Since Republicans have a majority in the Senate, they have the power to change Senate rules, so that a minority of Senators can no longer prevent the full Senate from voting on judicial nominees. Such a rule change is referred to as "the nuclear option," since it would be a major change that could provoke major retaliation by the Democrats, both in obstructing current legislation and in the future using that same rule to ride roughshod over Republicans whenever the Democrats gain control of the Senate. An aging Supreme Court means that there is now a perhaps once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to stop the erosion of democratic self-government by putting advocates of judicial restraint, rather than judicial activism, on the federal courts, including the Supreme Court. Senate Democrats understand how high the stakes are. But do the Republicans? President Bush clearly does but Republican Senator Arlen Specter, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, either doesn't know or doesn't care about the larger Constitutional issues. He is siding with the Democrats in the name of compromise. Senator William Frist, the Republican majority leader, says he has the votes to change Senate rules to prevent a minority from denying the full Senate the right to vote on judicial nominees. Senator Frist also had the votes to prevent Senator Specter from becoming chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee but he didn't do it. He chose to avoid a fight. That is not a hopeful sign for what to expect when high noon comes on the President's judicial nominees.
It is painfully ironic that we should be promoting the spread of democracy abroad when democracy is shrinking at home. Over the years, the outcomes of our elections have meant less and less, as judges have taken more and more decisions out of the hands of elected officials.
Judges have imposed their own notions on everything from school administration to gay marriage, and have ordered both state and federal agencies to spend billions of dollars to carry out policies favored by the judges or have even ordered a state legislature to raise taxes.
This naked exercise of judicial power has been covered by the fig leaf of pretense to be "interpreting" laws and the Constitution by stretching and twisting words beyond recognition.
The merits of the particular policies or expenditures is not the issue. The real issue is much bigger: Are the people to have the right to elect their own representatives to decide issues or are unelected judges to take over an ever-increasing share of the power to rule?
This has happened gradually but steadily. Just as the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan referred to our growing acceptance of immoral behavior as "defining deviancy downward," so we have come to accept the steady erosion of democratic government as judges have defined democracy downward.
While people in various countries in the Middle East are beginning to stir as they see democracy start to take root in Iraq, our own political system is moving steadily in the opposite direction, toward rule by unelected judicial ayatollahs, acting like the ayatollahs in Iran.
That is what makes the impending Senate battle over judicial nominees something much bigger than a current political squabble or a clash of Senatorial egos.
One way to stop the continuing erosion of the American people's right to govern themselves would be to appoint judges who follow the great Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' doctrine that his job was to see that the game is played by the rules, "whether I like them or not."
Judges with that philosophy are anathema to liberal Democrats in the Senate today. They know that the only way many liberal policies can become law is by having them imposed by judges, because voters have increasingly rejected such policies and the candidates who espouse them.
The Senate's Constitutional right and duty to "advise and consent" on the President's judicial nominees is being denied by a minority of Democratic Senators who refuse to let these nominees be voted on. Since Republicans have a majority in the Senate, they have the power to change Senate rules, so that a minority of Senators can no longer prevent the full Senate from voting on judicial nominees.
Such a rule change is referred to as "the nuclear option," since it would be a major change that could provoke major retaliation by the Democrats, both in obstructing current legislation and in the future using that same rule to ride roughshod over Republicans whenever the Democrats gain control of the Senate.
An aging Supreme Court means that there is now a perhaps once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to stop the erosion of democratic self-government by putting advocates of judicial restraint, rather than judicial activism, on the federal courts, including the Supreme Court.
Senate Democrats understand how high the stakes are. But do the Republicans? President Bush clearly does but Republican Senator Arlen Specter, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, either doesn't know or doesn't care about the larger Constitutional issues. He is siding with the Democrats in the name of compromise. Senator William Frist, the Republican majority leader, says he has the votes to change Senate rules to prevent a minority from denying the full Senate the right to vote on judicial nominees. Senator Frist also had the votes to prevent Senator Specter from becoming chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee but he didn't do it. He chose to avoid a fight. That is not a hopeful sign for what to expect when high noon comes on the President's judicial nominees.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Paragraphs are hiding under my bed waiting for me to go to sleep so they can... well, I'm not sure what, but I'm scared.
I heard Sowell today on the radio refer to the ultimate nuclear option as being the President and Congress simply refusing to enforce some of the loony decisions of the SCOTUS.
I don't know how nuclear such a move should be considered. President Jackson apparently didn't feel he must bow down to the Courts, and Alexander Hamilton reassured those who feared judicial review, while he himself was arguing for it, that there is nothing to fear since the Courts have no power to enforce their decisions. I interpret that as an invitation to disregard the ludicrous decisions of the Court.
I've already notified my Senators that I am displeased and am watching closely. They get exactly one chance to screw up, then they've lost my vote.
Why elect Republicans if they are so spineless?
Oh, that's easy. I'll take "window dressing" for $200, Alex.
Anyone know of a conservative political party I can get behind?
Mark Levin has been saying that there is nothing in the Constitution which requires states to OBEY the USSC - that the states can just refuse.
The USSC is just to INTERPRET the law - not WRITE IT!
But .. I'd never vote for a democrat - what's left?
I just want to cause such a ruckus that they figure out we're not kidding - they need to get with the program and stop cowering to the democrats.
If the Republicans don't opt for the "nuclear" option, conservativism as we know it will only be read in out of date history books.
I'd like that as well, but I won't hold my breath waiting for it.
The Rats are dying, the Pubbies have no cojones. I see the Rats splintering soon, which means a conservative party could have electoral sucess as a viable 3rd party.
Keep in mind that alot of the people that voted for Bush in 2004 weren't really "big" on him; just that the alternative was so abhorent. The Pubbies have been in power for 10+ years; the clock is ticking for them. Time to put up or STFU.
The problem with a threat is that you have to be willing and able to carry it out; otherwise it is an empty threat and can be seen as such.
Why do they need this "nuclear option?"
All they really have to do is when some silly democRAT raises his/her little hand and chirps "this issue is now under filibuster, all discussion is hereby ended," the presiding chair simply says, OK get up here and filibuster. When you run out of gas, we bring it to a vote. And nobody leaves this chamber until said filibuster quits speaking.
That would be a much simpler change in the rules and would not be "nuclear," but it would be effective.
bttt
"a threat"
What threat are you talking about ..??
The judges is the 'litmus' test for the Republican party. But you are right if everyone will keep voting Republican no matter what as the rats really are that bad, then there is no reason for them to tkae risks like that.
Its hard to know how women voters, even christian conervative women voters would react to overturning Roe V Wade for example.
The threat to vote for another party.
Uh huh.
There really are too many "one issue" voters out there.
Nobody will take a good long look at what is best for the country as a whole. Everybody just backs whoever is for their own pet project.
Sad, really.
I hate to say this but I am starting to question democracy itself, as the foundation for a system.
In our original constitution, only male property owners could vote for congressmen. And those congressmen were in session for two weeks of each year. Their main purpose was a final check and balance of an executive out of control.
The President was chosen by state govenors.. and the senators by state legislators. Judges appointed by the President as now. So it was democratic in that the people got the final say.. but not democratic as we think of it now.
Then lets not forget many issues you simply couldn't vote on, even if you were the president. Like gun rights.
Unchecked democracy like in Europe seems to be a one way ticket to socialism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.