Posted on 05/17/2005 3:30:23 PM PDT by RWR8189
Some of my more liberal friends have expressed displeasure with certain columns I've written -- one going so far as to accuse me of becoming Phyllis Schlafly, the conservative woman who became famous in Illinois years back due to her staunch opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment. I told him that he was wrong, that I am still in favor of the ERA being passed someday, that I went to both of my children's graduations (unlike Schlafly, the pro-family conservative who missed her daughter's), and that I still love him, despite the fact he suffers from an affliction that causes him to walk in a discomfiting liberal lockstep.
It is difficult to understand some of the stances clung to by my far-left friends, particularly since some of them are very bright. For instance, I don't understand how they can possibly argue in favor of the Democratic filibuster that has been plaguing the U.S. Senate and keeping it from its constitutional duty to give advice and consent on judicial nominees of the president.
Currently, we have federal courts experiencing a significant lack of judges -- particularly in the appellate courts. Due to these vacancies, thousands of cases cannot be heard and are just sitting in overcrowded court dockets. It is said that justice -- to be just -- must be swift. If that is so, we lack justice in the United States and the Senate filibuster is keeping justice from being served.
Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution requires a simple majority of only 51 votes for the Senate to confirm a judicial nominee, not the 60 votes the Senate Rules Committee has come up with to block confirmations. But we're not even getting to the votes on these nominations. What's going on is unprecedented in getting judicial nominations confirmed.
The Democrats are using the threat of filibuster against nominees who have been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee -- William Myers, California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown, Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen and Circuit Judge William Pryor -- and that is against the Constitution's principle of separation of powers. The Constitution gives the executive branch the power to make judicial appointments. It gives the Senate the power to check those nominees with a majority vote. By changing that standard, and not allowing the nominees to come up for a vote, the Democrats are usurping the power of the executive branch -- and that, dear liberal friends, is wrong.
Senate Democrats have blocked 10 of President Bush's 34 Appellate Court nominees and stopped another six in committee.
Enough is enough. We've watched the filibuster debate in the Senate for too long now. It's time to bring the judicial candidates to an up or down vote.
How important is this? How long do you want to wait to have a case heard? How many judges are needed to hear trials -- right now -- of illegal aliens? What kind of justice is there when there aren't enough judges to fill the benches?
This has gone beyond gamesmanship or brinkmanship. It's time for an up or down vote. Time for all of us to call Washington and demand an end to the filibuster of judicial nominees. After all, it's petty party politics. Consider that in 1998, Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy (who is now for the filibuster) spoke out vehemently against it, saying, ''I would object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported, that I felt the Senate should do its duty. If we don't like somebody the president nominates, vote him or her down.'' That same year, Sen. Ted Kennedy, the liberal Democrat from Massachusetts, said, ''The Constitution is clear ... we should resolve these disagreements by voting on these nominees -- yes or no.''
So how does the left now find it baffling that a majority of Americans are upset that the Democrats continue to refuse to bring the president's judicial nominees up for a yes or no vote? I'll tell you how. With a wink and a jab of the elbow to one another, they state they have to block the nominees for the good of the country.
For the good of the country? No, it's for the good of their party. And it's time to tell them to stop the games and call for an up or down vote.
Tell Sen. Richard Durbin and Sen. Barack Obama how you feel about the filibuster. And while you're at it, remind them that you sent them to Washington to do a job, not to stop progress.
my far-left friends . . .
This is his first problem. I don't have such problems myself. I have no liberal friends nor far left friends that I acknowledge as friends. I consider liberals and leftists enemies of the Republic, wanting to destroy everything the Republic is and was founded upon. So, he first needs to learn how to choose his friends a little more carefully.
The qualites of alacrity, garrulousness and intensity have little to do with intelligence.
Have none of these columnists read the Constitution?
I called both the Minority Leader' and Majority Leader's
Office today( plus my own Senators Allard-and Salazar-Said
I don't know which makes me more angry Senator Salazar calling Dr.Dobson the "anti-Christ of the world"or Senator
Salazars peer saying that crap about "going upstairs and
reading the FBI files on some of the Judges" so we could
understand why they are being denied a vote. Said the Fillibuster rule is not only archaic, but unConstitutional as a Senate rule. And if the Senators are not grown up enough to simply vote yes or No on any Judge then the boy
ought pack up their bags and go home.Will it do any good?
God only knows-and the Democrats have been hiding behind
that Wall of separation since 1947
They only believe in power grabbing any way they can get it. Since they keep losing elections, they need the judiciary to impose their views on a public less enlightened that they are.
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.