Posted on 04/08/2005 4:31:36 AM PDT by Zivasmate
Invoking the 'nuclear option' -- there is no other option David Limbaugh (archive)
April 8, 2005 | Print | Send
I think Republican Party honchos may be underestimating the grassroots passion over the judiciary. The outrage against activist courts -- and by no means are all of them activist -- is real, growing and far from a fringe phenomenon.
Conservative activists have been patiently waiting for some action, just some evidence that the Republican Party is going to pay more than hollow Beltway lip service to this issue. Year after year, though politicians are elected promising change, little evidence emerges that the promises are being fulfilled.
More and more conservatives are advocating civil disobedience to combat what they consider to be extra-constitutional decisions by state and federal courts, like the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's brazen validation of homosexual marriage.
It is inconceivable that the Massachusetts judges were unaware that they were acting beyond the scope of their constitutional authority by judicially rewriting the state constitution. But that doesn't bother secular liberals, on or off the bench, because the "ends" to them are sufficiently important to justify practically any means.
The Democratic Party has long advocated the use of judicial activism to effectuate liberal policies that could not be achieved through democratic (legislative) processes. They make no apologies for their advocacy, nor do they bother to explain their hypocrisy in selectively decrying the few instances of judicial activism emanating from the other side.
Don't just assume that fringe groups are losing their patience. How long can "rule of law" conservatives sit idly by as liberal Democrats continue to break the rules with impunity? How much more do they have to tolerate before something is done in response to such cavalier judicial behavior as we witnessed when the federal courts ignored Congress' statute in the Terri Schiavo matter?
I realize that some have difficulty with Congress (and the Florida legislature before it) sticking its nose into that case through what could arguably be called special legislation. Legislatures are supposed to pass general laws, not special laws.
On the other hand, a woman was being killed by order of state and public officials, who were sworn to uphold state and federal constitutions, and have an obligation to protect the lives of innocent citizens.
The propriety (or lack thereof) of Judge George W. Greer's decisions is one thing, assuming he was exercising lawful jurisdiction. We can disagree with his decision, even be outraged by it, but our main criticism here is probably not about his judicial activism.
But when the federal district court summarily disobeyed the congressional statute and ignored Congress' subpoena, one has to wonder whether any semblance of parity actually exists anymore between the judiciary and the other two branches. The courts are so sure they're the final authority, they sometimes behave as if there is utterly no accountability -- and their assessment may be more accurate than not.
I am telling you that conservatives are sick and tired of hearing conservatives like me recommend caution and restraint, saying we have to work within the system to elect politicians who will appoint and confirm judges who will honor the Constitution and their proper role under it or have Congress rein in the courts via its Article III authority.
Indeed, I must confess that I will begin to feel foolish recommending such restraint if there is any truth to the reports that Senate Republicans plan on abandoning the misnamed "nuclear option" to prevent the Democrat minority from filibustering the president's judicial appointments.
If Republicans even think about caving on this issue, they will pay a price. This is no time for fecklessness. Democrats couldn't be more insincere when they complain that the nuclear option is designed to forestall debate or to give the president absolute power over judicial appointments.
Senate Democrats have no business blocking his appointments for political or policy reasons. A rule to prevent them from doing what neither party ever did in the past is not changing the rules, and it is not exercising a nuclear option.
I actually think this issue is so serious that it might, along with the immigration issue, eventually trigger an exodus of conservatives from the GOP. If those of us who advocate playing by the rules can't even count on GOP politicians to safeguard the president's judicial appointment power -- then what can we trust them to do?
If they don't have the courage to exercise the non-nuclear, nuclear option, do you think we'll ever again get anyone to the right of David Souter appointed to the Supreme Court? And if we don't, they might as well just throw in the towel on the Culture War.
This is a political hill to die on, and I pray GOP honchos wake up -- soon.
David Limbaugh is a syndicated columnist who blogs at DavidLimbaugh.com
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
******************
The writer has a point, although I do wish those of us on the Right would refer to the option correctly as the "constitutional option". Using the words of the Left doesn't help us clarify our position.
We have some hard choices to make in the coming elections.
I've written multiple e-mails to the judicial committee Republicans and to my two senators, Santorum and sphincter, and to the RNC all with the same message. NOT ONE MORE DIME, until all of President Bush's judicial nominees get an up or down vote on the floor of the senate. I've donated and worked for the pubbies and if is the results we get with a majority in both houses and the White House, then screw them, I will give it up. I don't think the senators realize how deeply we care about this issue. They better stop talking and start doing.
*************
I agree. In my opinion, this issue is right up there with national security in importance.
I agree completely and have sent letters and emails to the RNC, as well as my 2 GA senators, in fact returning ALL their requests for more money saying:
NOT one penney until judicial filibusters are STOPPED.
bump
Limbaugh is right! The Terri Schiavo atrocity is the straw that broke the camel's back. I don't know anyone who voted Republican that has a problem with the "Nuclear Option" (and who the h**l cares what you call it, except weak-kneed RINOs and Democrats)! How can Frist and the Senate Republicans not see the connection between the Schiavo atrocity and the runaway judiciary that the rank and file makes every day. And, if the Republicans get the immigration issue wrong, I expect that to be the final nails in their coffins!
The problem with the term "nuclear option"is it gives the other side the moral upper hand. The implication of the term is that it is such a radical move and should never be used. This would allow the MSM and "Rats to call it a political move that is "off the charts" in terms of its gall and its morality.
But, under any other name, darn it, use it already.
Why do you think the Left HATES DeLay so much?
They much prefer Frist, who stands for one thing today, and the opposite tomorrow.
Ping to you r first sentence.
************
Agreed.
While I'm all for using the option, the thing that scares me is what happens if the dems get the presidency and control of congress back? Thet won't hesitate to use the option since we did.
Who cares? It's not like Republicans are going to filibuster judges anyway. We just don't do that sort of thing. Abe Fortas was 4 days and Republicans will never decide to take out judges en masse.
If that's the case then let's go for it!!
That's why about 50 showed up the MFJ recently. Yep, real grass routes support.
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.