Posted on 11/20/2003 1:15:39 PM PST by naystoshays
Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied
Over the two days I spent last week in Washington observing the Senate special session on "Justice For Judges" I heard lots of words—but not those above. Those erudite comments were nonetheless uttered on the floor of the U.S. Senate on January 30, 1995 by current Minority Leader Thomas Daschle. They are a succinct summary of what his fellow senators on the Republican side of the aisle tried to get across to the nation over a period of 40 hours. Whether or not their attempt was successful depends on the quality and amount of press devoted to it, or I as like to say; If a tree falls in a forest and a liberal doesn't hear it, will it get media coverage?
Well, Tom Harkin appeared on the floor with a hand-made sign proclaiming, "I'll be home watching The Bachelor," in the hopes that the rest of America would do the same. Then the session opened with a grand entrance by the Republicans en masse, an event ridiculed by the left as 'made for Fox News'—as opposed, I guess, to when a pep-rally/fund raiser breaks out at a nationally-televised memorial service. Thus began the great debate.
While I did not witness all 40 hours, I did hear 39 senators speak. There was no lack of signs, graphs and charts representing the number of judges who were or were not confirmed under various administrations, but the numbers most often bandied about by the Democrats were 168 and 3 million. The 3 million of course refers to the number of jobs that President Bush has "lost" since he took office. The only jobs I'm aware of that the president is personally responsible for losing would be that of one Albert Gore, Jr., lately president of the Senate and Saddam Hussein, lately president of Iraq.
The 168 refers to the number of the Administration's judicial nominees confirmed so far by the Senate out of 172 submitted. That 98 percent rate was the subject of many long-winded trips into tedium by the minority party as in, "I'd be pretty darn happy if my kids brought home test scores like that." This prompted remarks by the majority suggesting that 98 is not a great percentage in all things, such as airplane safety records and marital fidelity. Saxby Chambliss then made this telling statement; "The fact is, the Constitution of the United States must be complied with 100 percent of the time."
Some Democrats used to feel that way, even the venerable Teddy Kennedy. The Ancient Mariner himself said in March of 2000, "Over 200 years ago, the Framers of the Constitution created a system of checks and balances to ensure that excessive power is not concentrated in any branch of government. The President was given the authority to nominate federal judges with the advice and consent of the Senate. The clear intent was for the Senate to work with the President, not against him, in this process."
Clearly though, Senator Kennedy and his colleagues no longer consider themselves bound by a 214 year-old document. Perhaps they should have a look at a more recent publication, one that is given to visitors to the Senate Chamber and whose foreword bears the signatures of both Bill Frist and Tom Daschle. Page 13 of S. Pub 108-9 in a section entitled, "The Senate In Session" reads:
Simple enough for visiting school children to understand, but apparently too taxing a concept for nearly half of the "world's greatest deliberative body." Another minor line that seems to have escaped their notice resides in the Sixth Amendment: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial..." Some would interpret that to mean that part of a senator's oath would involve ensuring that the Federal courts were kept at their full compliment of judges.
Not when a group of 44 senators has decided to set a precedent by not allowing an up-and-down vote on nominees that have come out of the Judiciary Committee. Never once in this country's history has the Senate upset the balance of power between the three branches of government in this manner by denying the president this Constitutional right. There have been efforts in the past to filibuster several nominations but these attempts were always squelched by members of the opposition's own party—every single time!
Many have noted that the Democrats' obstruction is fueled by the fear that conservative judges outside the "mainstream" will make it to the Supreme Court where they may be unwilling to don the 3-D glasses required to see the penumbral emanations which are the basis for much of their liberal agenda. It's that and much more.
When in desperation mode, the liberals turn to their most reliable weapon, the race card. Only this time they're trying to keep it up their sleeve. The ugly truth is this; the Democrats are using the filibuster to keep conservative minorities out of the Federal judiciary using the worst kind of racism—that of painting a whole group of people with the same brush. African-Americans and Hispanics are not 'allowed' to be conservative and must therefore be struck down lest others on the Democratic plantation get similar ideas.
The Republicans have been making slight inroads with minorities as well as with the "gender-gap" and this cannot be allowed to continue. It is no coincidence that out of the six blocked judges, four are either women or minorities or both. Consider that John Roberts, who is white, and Miguel Estrada were nominated on the same day, had the same background and that both served in the Solicitor General's office. The 'official' reason for the Estrada filibuster is that he would not turn over his working papers from his time as SG, yet no such request was made of Judge Roberts who was confirmed by a unanimous voice vote in May. It seems that liberals approve of affirmative action to fill law-school quotas, but when these minorities apply for membership in the big club the re-action is distinctly negative.
But the most insidious aspect of this travesty is the way the Democrats are spitting in the face of the American people. Whether they and their media minions like it or not, George W. Bush is the President and his party won the majority of seats in both houses of Congress in the last election. This gives them the Constitutional prerogative to nominate and confirm judges, even along partisan lines—that's the way the system works, or had worked until the 108th Congress. But don't take it from me, take it from eight-term Senator Kennedy who said in May of 1997:
Bigotry & Obstruction In The U.S. Senate The Constitution is straightforward about the few instances in which more than a majority of the Congress must vote: A veto override, a treaty, and a finding of guilt in an impeachment proceeding. Every other action by the Congress is taken by majority vote . . . Democracy means majority rule, not minority gridlock.
During an executive session, the Senate may consider any nomination or treaty that the president submits for advice and consent. Nominations are confirmed by a simple majority, but the Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate to approve treaties.
The current judicial shutdown is an unconscionable act of partisan politics. It is impairing the effective enforcement of the laws. The real victims are the American people. Justice delayed is justice denied.
© Copyright 2003 — This report, is submitted by the writer for publication exclusively in Toogood Reports, but remains the property of its author and may not be reproduced in whole or in part without the writer's express prior written consent. The opinions and facts expressed herein are those of the writer alone, who is solely responsible for its contents, and does not purport in any way to represent Toogood Reports, its owners or its management.
To comment on this article or express your opinion directly to the author, you are invited to e-mail Lisa at mailbox@lisafab.com .
However, I hasten to point out that the President is not denied anything. It is he who must take his nominees personally to the Senate floor and request an up or down vote, given that sufficient time for deliberation has passed.
If the Senate refuses to vote, then he may have any justice who he wishes to pick, swear in his nominees, or do that himself.
When the Senate objects, they may go so far to impeach such judges.
Let them try.
It's about time that with regard to the authority of the President, to place judges on the basis of the Senate's advice and consent, that the process respect the requirement under our rule of law, that it too observes "due process."
In the case of the minority of Senators obstructing such due process, and the whole of the Senate's temerity at failing to uphold due process over its arrogant assumptions that its rules trump the Constitution --- in such situations --- the President has a duty to the Constitution to preserve it over the whims of the Senators.
Where his placements of judges are so offensive to the Senators, that they may impeach them, then fine; let them impeach them; but again, it will be the duty of the President to ensure that such proceedings also adhere to the rule of law.
The most important job of the Congress, is to be lawful.
When it is not, either the President must bring a halt to the unlawfulness, or the people will.
All worry inside the Beltway, is that some Constitutional showdown will result between the President and the Senate ... when the showdown to be avoided is between the people and the Congress.
Formerly a member of this forum chose to argue that I was suggesting that the President obstruct the right of the Senate. No. I'm not. The Senate's authority is not barred --- it remains to the Senate to remove judges that it disapproves of, at any time.
In no way have I suggested anything that stops them from doing their duty.
To the contrary, I have argued.
Do your authorized duty under the Constitution; observe the lawful due process.
The President is under no charge to respect the unlawful undue processes of the Senate.
Yet his is a corporate animal who will not risk much beyond the umbilical cord attached to his lawyers.
And so we wait for the day that he will risk breathing on his own.
Somebody get that man some copies of a few good books on the foundations of our country. And Katie bar the door against anymore lawyers barging in.
I like your idea of President Bush just walking them over to the Senate for a vote.
If the Senate refuses to vote, then he may have any justice who he wishes to pick, swear in his nominees, or do that himself.
When the Senate objects, they may go so far to impeach such judges.
Let them try.
Amen! I am so weary of hearing people say that the President would be usurping the legislative branch’s powers by moving along those lines. And yet blatant acts of unconstitutional obstructionism in the halls of congress are met with no more outrage than some public hand-wringing by these same people. Gives new and sickening meaning to the word hypocrisy.
When it is not, either the President must bring a halt to the unlawfulness, or the people will.
I don’t see it that way, Mike. I think it all lies on the President’s shoulders. And it’s time for him to stop compromising with the enemy, or concerning himself with bad press. Every time a conservative President bends to the will of those who view the Constitution as nothing more than a roadblock to agenda realization, he empowers them (both the leftist politicians and their media cohorts) more. Ask Ronald Reagan.
As for the people …. there are some people who would be willing to do what is necessary to stop this congressional lawlessness (I’d like to think that you and I are among that tiny group) – whether it be through a lawsuit, petition, or (avenue of last resort) storming the halls of congress. It seems to me that the methods by which we are allowed a redress of grievances have all but dried up, due to restrictions that have been put in place. Redressing grievances now involves jumping through so many bureaucratic, legalistic hoops that most of our countrymen would consider it a dauntless task – and with good reason. That, after all, is the sole purpose of the infinite hoop array.
But the dauntless part is secondary to the apathy part. None of those hypothetical options listed above is viable even for the most agile of hoop jumpers, because, for any of the three to succeed (especially option three), numbers are required.
As in millions. Dozens won’t do. And an apathetic populace is not a good pool from which to draw courageous confronters of overbearing governments -- part of the reason the 1765 article from the Pennsylvania Gazette that you alerted me to on another thread yesterday hit me so hard. As you yourself said on that thread, that small band of men had had enough, so they ‘impressed their word of caution upon wayward governors --- before less peaceful means were required …. leaving no doubt of the consequences of failing to respect their determination to affirm their liberty and maintain the lawful peace.’
Where do we find such men today? Oh, I’m sure that here on this forum we boast more than our fair share. But out on the streets of your average city, what do you suppose would be the response if you stopped a random one hundred men, after work hours, and asked them if they would be willing to take some sort of personal or group action to bring the senate in line regarding their obstruction of a Constitutionally prescribed process such as judicial appointments?
I truly believe that fifty percent of them would stare back at you as if you had sprouted antennae. Another twenty-five percent would respond with something like, ‘Gotta go. Nice talking to you. I wish you the best in this.’ Fifteen percent would volunteer their e-mail addresses and ask you to send them more information (which would find itself clicked, spam-like, into the recycle bin, unread). Another five percent would call you a ‘radical’ (in perhaps more cordial terms than that, but the meaning would be the same), back up cautiously, and then be on their way to Starbucks to discuss more important matters with their friends. Of the remaining five percent, you might find one person who either shares your anger and concern, or is willing to learn more about the reasons for it.
It’s not a good enough ratio to make a difference.
That’s why a major disruption in the lives and fortunes of Americans (not necessarily a terrorist act – although that would serve the same purpose) may prove to be the only thing that will serve as a catalyst toward a reawakening in this country – a realization that some things are indeed worth (the average citizen, not only the military) fighting, and dying, for.
I have several theories as to how that may come about -- and I desperately wish the coming about weren’t necessary at all. I sincerely believe that we are going to be tried and tested in a mighty way, and that, on the other end of the turmoil, we will either lie supine in the ashes (in which case, America will cease to exist), or we will reclaim that which we have allowed to be taken from us. Praying for the latter – and planning for it, too. Envisioning the former is too hard to bear.
~ joanie
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.