Rev. Sheldon Speaks Out On War Against Bush Judges - (urges Republicans to act promptly)

The liberal war against President Bush’s judicial nominees continues—and the battle is heating up among Senate Republican leaders to bring an end to the filibustering of good judges.

Two of these fine judges are Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen and California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown. Both of their nominations have been blocked for years by left-leaning Senators.

In Rev. Sheldon’s recent commentary on the liberal efforts to keep decent judges from receiving a full vote in the Senate, he noted: “The screeching leftist special interest groups like People for the American Way have worked hand in glove with Senate liberals to lie and to distort the records of these well qualified women to serve as federal judges.”

Senate liberals fear a full vote on these women because they do not want judges on the federal bench who believe in interpreting, rather than creating laws. Liberals want activist judges who are pro-abortion, pro-pornography, pro-homosexual, and pro-big government. In short, they want judges who are anti-traditional values and who will act as judicial tyrants—so long as the tyranny supports liberal social engineering.

Senate Republicans led by Senator Bill Frist (R-TN) are on the verge of restoring Senate tradition, which calls for a simple majority vote to affirm judicial nominees.

TVC joined with the National Coalition To End Judicial Filibusters in sending a letter of concern over this issue to key Senators on the Hill. In it, we stated: “The Senate must act as steward of the federal courts by returning the power to confirm judges to the Constitution’s simple majority requirement.”

The constitutional option is grounded in Article I, Section 5 of the U.S. Constitution that empowers the Senate to “determine the Rules of its Proceedings.”

Goal: Restore the 214-year Senate tradition of approving the President’s nominations by a simple majority vote.

Means: Use a simple majority vote to set a new precedent without changing Rule XXII of the standing rules. For instance, a Senator would raise a point of order to close debate on a nominee. The presiding officer would sustain the point of order, thereby setting a new, binding precedent. The minority’s appeal of the ruling could be tabled with a simple majority vote.

Historic Examples: The use of a simple majority vote to set precedents is as old as the Senate. In recent history, Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd (D-WV) generated four precedents that allowed a simple majority to change Senate procedures without altering the text of the standing rules. Two of Byrd’s precedents overturned precedents then standing, and two reinterpreted the language of an existing standing rule. The precedents were made by a point of order and sustained with a simple majority vote:

Ending post-cloture filibusters (1977)
Limiting amendments to appropriations bills (1979)
Governing consideration of nominations (1980)
Governing voting procedures (1987)

Will the constitutional option lead to the elimination of the legislative filibuster?

No. The legislative filibuster is an important feature of our bicameral legislature that will be preserved. Restoring simple-majority approval of nominations will not lead to the elimination of the minority’s rights or the filibuster of legislation. The constitutional option will apply only to the filibuster of nominations. In fact, when Democrats spearheaded an effort to eliminate ALL filibusters in 1995, 19 Democrat Senators voted for it (including Bingaman, Boxer, Feingold, Harkin, Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, Lieberman, And Sarbanes), but not one Republican.

Will the constitutional option undermine the ability of a future Republican minority to defend its rights?

No. Never has a Republican minority stopped a judicial nominee with majority support from getting an up-or-down vote on the Senate Floor. Not until 2003 did that happen – under the Democratic minority of Tom Daschle and Harry Reid. The constitutional option simply restores the 214-year tradition of the U.S. Senate.

Does the constitutional option undermine the principle of the Senate as a continuing body?

No. The Senate has remained a continuing body even though precedents affecting Senate procedure are established throughout the year by simple majority vote.

Does the constitutional option erase the differences between the House and Senate?

No. The Senate will remain the “saucer that cools the hot cup of tea.” Holds, legislative filibusters, and unanimous consent agreements will continue to govern the day-to-day actions of the Senate, empowering the minority to stop the majority.

TAKE ACTION: If one of these Senators represents you, contact them by phone or email and ask that they be present to vote on Thursday for President Bush’s nominees: Senators Specter, Grassley, Brownback, Graham, and Sessions.

Call Capitol Hill switchboard at 202-224-3121 or use CapWiz to contact them:

"In fact, when Democrats spearheaded an effort to eliminate ALL filibusters in 1995, 19 Democrat Senators voted for it (including Bingaman, Boxer, Feingold, Harkin, Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, Lieberman, And Sarbanes), but not one Republican"

As usual .. the dems are complaining about the repubs trying to do something - which they already tried to do - amazing!! I know I shouldn't be, but I am continually stunned by how these people operate. How do they ever know what they stand for .. they change their minds every other day or so. LOL!

2 posted on 04/21/2005 11:59:21 PM PDT by CyberAnt (President Bush: "America is the greatest nation on the face of the earth")

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.