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.
That's the way it used to be, worked fine 'back then'.
And think about just one aspect of it.. why should renters have say so over the raising of property taxes? If they live in a 20 unit building their rents go up 1/20th, ours goes up the whole 'dime'. That is UN-AMERICAN!
The Republicans are afraid the Democrats won't like them if, as the majority, they demand votes for President Bush's judicial nominees.
What Republicans should be afraid of, is how angry their voting base will be if they abdicate and allow minority Democrats to control the Senate and force liberal judges onto the Supreme Court.
Time after time Republicans win when they act and vote as Republicans, yet some are still afraid the Democrats and their cronies at The New York Times and Washington Post won't like them. They need to get a clue, those folks don't like them and never will.
Wittiest thing I've seen all day, thanks!
Just like raising a child, Judges need to know there are consequences to their bad behavior. A life-time appointment is a privilege, not a dictatorship.
>>The problem is we seem to be locked in a room with two women and our choices are limited to ONLY these two.<<
No, this is OUR choice. Remain convinced that whomever the RNC / GOP puts forth should be who we MUST vote for and the degradation will continue.
I have no idea why people continue contributing to the RNC financially for their candidates.
True, old habits are hard to break but the time to use our addiction cure is long past.IMHO
But .. their "opinions" are being used to usurp the CONSTITUTION - which means their "opinions" ARE WRITING THE LAW - NOT INTERPRETATING IT.
It was their "opinion" that no child under the age of 18 should be put to death. Even though that is really a STATES issue and many, many states already have laws regarding the issue. Their statement USURPS THE a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT - and a whole lot of state rights.
It's time for the states to stand up and say NO!!
I whole heartedly agree the question is what can be done in a world of political parties and professional politicians at the helm.
Rush Limbaugh has repeatedly pointed out that there are
two primary issues that - if not faced by the LEADERSHIP -
can result in demoralizing the base (which doesn't go for
the Dems but DROPS OUT): (1)Immigration and out-of-control
borders and (2) the subject at hand -- changing the Senate
rule that allows filibusters. I heard Sowell yesterday
say the same thing when he was guest of Walter Williams
who was filling in for Rush. But the larger point is that
this is NOT a partisan issue. The filibuster, as now
utilized, is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. There are seven instances
cited in the U.S. Constitution that call for supermajority
votes and judicial confirmation is NOT one of them.
This is a deliberate distortion of the Senate's duty
to "advise and consent". This is -- partisan politics
aside - something that should be done because it's the
RIGHT thing to do. I think if the Republicans don't
demonstrate a willingness to uphold conviction and
principle on these issues -- and show leadership from
Bush down - the midterm election of '06 may be very
disastrous.
" The further we have gotten away from this concept and moved toward "democracy", the worse things have gotten."
No doubt why the Democrats push to remove the last vestiges of our republic.. like a 'living constitution'.. to getting rid of the electoral college, in favor of pure democracy.
I agree with you - and it has me very worried.
If we don't maintain control over the Senate and House, the rest of the Bush term will be DISASTER!
But .. Bush does not do things like other people do. He re-nominated all of the same judges the dems would not vote on the first time. Somehow I cannot believe Bush would do that unless he had some assurance from Frist that these people could get confirmed.
This stall on the repubs part may very well be another rope-a-dope. As we have seen - the more the rumblings about the "nuclear option", the wilder and louder the dems lie and lie and lie about it.
And .. I read yesterday that Specter is not making Pryor (? I think) go through the committee portion again, but will go directly for a floor vote. If that's true - this may be the moment the nuclear option will be put forth.
"Paragraphs are our friends:"
Amen and Thank you!
The first thing I plan to do is read Mark Levin's book - "Men in Black" - then I plan to start a snail mail campaign to my legislators on the repub side and exhort them to do something about this rampant judicial junk.
I've used this system before, with good success. I write a main letter - no swearing - no name calling - just hard-hitting facts. Then I include public stats and sometimes a cartoon or two. The goal is to let them know - we are paying attention and we do know what the Constitution says about their obligation to reign in the courts.
They are charged by the Constitution as the keepers of what the COURTS CAN AND CANNOT DO. It's time they started earning their pay.
And .. we need to start a petition - forcing the congress to reduce the USSC to 12-year appointments and stop the LIFETIME stuff. This lifetime job stuff breeds corruption and laziness, with impunity.
BUMP
"seem to have a deaf ear"
Then .. maybe it's our responsibility to change that - maybe it's up to us to keep the cards and letters pouring in until they are FORCED to listen.
In April, Roger Hedgecock is taking a group of "Hold Their Feet to the Fire" people - along with several other talk radio groups, and they are going to lobby the congress to pass some legislation to protect our borders, and keep the illegals out. They're planning on 1000 people.
This is going to be very effective. How do I know that ..?? Because I went on a trip with Roger in March of 2001, and even though there were only 103 of us, when the congress people found out we travelled there by paying our own way - they really listened to us - we were lobbying for our TAX CUTS .. and we got them.
We cannot give up - because it's hard to get them to listen. But .. what they believe may "diminish" their power is the exact opposite. They need to realize that their popularity with the dems is nothing compared with the popularity they need to aspire to with us - the voters. We have to keep pounding them to see this point of view. I was serious when I ask them to give up the fancy parties and the trips to the Hamptons - and start supporting the Constitution instead. I can guarantee them - they will have a much larger following if they do - and all the dems will be clamoring to be invited to their house.
Don't be so willing to give up.
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.