Posted on 11/13/2003 2:47:21 AM PST by kattracks
(CNSNews.com) - Is the 30-hour debate taking place in the Senate "a colossal waste of time" or a "bold step" toward ending an unconstitutional outrage? The answer to this question depends on whether you're for or against the "Justice for Judges" marathon.
The Senate historian's office Wednesday stated that the Republican-led effort is the longest non-stop discussion in that chamber since a 30-hour, 41-minute session in 1994 on campaign finance reform.
Even before the debate got underway at 6 p.m. EDT Wednesday, Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) called the GOP strategy "a colossal waste of time." He added: "The Republicans are consumed by those four jobs and ignore the 3 million jobs that we've lost over the course of the last three years under this administration's economic policies."
The "four jobs" Daschle was referring to were the judicial nominations of Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen, Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor, U.S. District Judge Charles Pickering Sr. of Mississippi and California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown.
Under current rules, the 51 Republican senators set the chamber's agenda but need Democrats to pass legislation and nominees because it takes 60 votes to end debate. Without nine crossover Democrats, the debate never officially ends - the equivalent of a filibuster.
Daschle also noted that he and his fellow Democrats would spend some of their half of the debate discussing "our remarkable record of achievement in confirming judges - 98 percent" of the president's 172 nominations.
"You know, when you get 98 percent of what you want, there aren't many in sports or in business or even in politics that get 98 percent of all they wanted," Daschle added. "But that's really the current situation."
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on the Constitution, disagreed.
"Democrats have printed up buttons and stickers that say '98 percent,' referring to their mantra that a record of 168-4 is a good thing, that they should somehow be congratulated," Cornyn stated.
"But the truth is they should not be congratulated for violating the Constitution and preventing a bipartisan majority from voting these nominees onto the bench," the senator noted. "They should be ashamed.
"For some reason, however, they are actually proud of this shameful record, proud of the fact that, to date, they have 'only' launched four unconstitutional filibusters," Cornyn said.
"But it is wrong to treat good people like statistics," Cornyn added. "They deserve respect from every member of this chamber - not unprecedented filibusters and unconscionable character assassinations."
Members of the black leadership network Project 21 made similar remarks as the marathon session began.
"The public should be outraged that such experienced, respected and highly qualified judges are being treated like second-class incompetents - all because they don't pass the liberal litmus test," said Project 21 member Murdock Gibbs from Coppell, Texas.
"An up-or-down vote is not only necessary, but simply fair," said another Project 21 member, Michael King of Atlanta. "Allow the nominees' accomplishments while on the bench to stand for themselves."
Dr. James Dobson, founder and chairman of Focus on the Family, applauded the marathon effort, calling it a "bold step" toward ending the "hijacking" of the judicial nomination process.
"The candidates who have been subject to filibusters or threat of filibusters have mostly been pro-life, pro-family people," Dobson stated. "Clearly, what the liberal minority of the Senate is saying by this unprecedented ideological attack is that they don't believe Christian men and women ought to be able to serve on the federal bench.
"That kind of thinking is offensive and cannot be allowed to continue," Dobson said.
However, opponents of the four judicial nominees believe the marathon debate won't have any real success by the time it ends at midnight Thursday.
"There's a reason these nominees aren't getting through, and another 30 hours won't make any difference," said Judy Appelbaum, vice president and legal director of the National Women's Law Center.
But Maria Heil, spokesperson for the group Second Amendment Sisters, said she believes those opponents have another, more practical reason for their actions.
"None of their goals can be achieved through the normal, legal and established legislative process," Heil stated. "They simply do not have the true and popular support of the nation. Therefore, their only option is to 'legislate from the bench.'
"Those who support these nominations require judges to make their rulings based on the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Amendments," Heil said. "The opponents want the kind of judges who call the Constitution a 'living, breathing document' and who sometimes look to other nations for guidance.
"The Constitution deserves to be adhered to, especially by those who are sworn to uphold it," Heil concluded.
See Related Story:
Scorecard Gives 44 Senators Zero Rating on Judicial Nominees (Nov. 13, 2003)
E-mail a news tip to Randy Hall.
Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.
There's plenty of FR drug warriors who would love the opportunity.
There's plenty of FR drug warriors who would love the opportunity.
Plenty of non FR drug warriors too. Never on a single drug thread yet having the same attitude. Get to cover more ground that way.
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.