Posted on 05/22/2005 6:01:21 AM PDT by madprof98
With the U.S. Senate headed for a showdown over judicial nominees, veteran civil rights leader the Rev. Joseph Lowery on Saturday stepped up a campaign to protect the minority party's most powerful weapon: the filibuster.
"I find it absolutely incredible that [Republican senators] would even think about destroying what is the bedrock of the republic, and that is the protection of minority rights," said Lowery, chairman of an alliance of 36 civil rights groups and churches called the Coalition for the People's Agenda. "The perilous nature of this situation is that these judges will be there for life."
Two female judges — one black, the other white — are at the center of the debate over whether President Bush will be able to steer the federal judiciary in a more conservative direction.
Priscilla Owen, who is white, is a Texas Supreme Court justice whom Bush nominated for the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The Senate is teeing up Tuesday to vote out filibusters — a tactic used to block the body from voting — and vote in Owen.
Janice Rogers Brown, who is black, is a justice on the California Supreme Court whom Bush wants to put on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Democrats cite rulings by both judges that they say reflects extremist views on abortion, affirmative action and the rights of corporations. Republicans say the judges reflect the mainstream.
Lowery, who is a past president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, said "We're just as opposed to Janice Brown as we are to the white lady."
On Thursday, black ministers, including Bishop Wellington Boone of the Father's House in Norcross, appeared with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist in Washington to support a vote on Brown's nomination.
First, it's the Democrats that are trying to destroy it.
Second, this clown must only recently have joined the civul rights fray. Come to think of it, it was the Democrats in bygone days that used the filibuster to keep minorities in "their proper place" as well.
Once again, this is not a fight to protect the right of the minority party to filibuster. It is a fight by Democrats to keep control of appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court. That is what this fight is about, and nothing more.
I know how you feel, it gets to the point where the argument is so backwards and ridiculous that it becomes impossible to argue against it. Its almost as if they do it on purpose. Hum......Ever here of the critical theory of society? Sure sounds like our pinko Commie enemies have changed tactics but are still out there in force. Maybe even more dangerous than ever.
Let these useless, irrelevant people bitch & moan all they
want. The repubs are in the majority, they contol all three
branches of Gov't, (Soon it will be Four) they will damn well do what is right for this country and if those on the left don't like it the losers can go pound sand!
I'm also sick of the liberal tripe about how awful these nominees are, etc. There was a letter in our local paper on this theme yesterday. The liberals make it sound as if removing the filibuster results in the automatic confirmation of the nominee... never mind that the Senate still gets to vote. All these moans of how odious the nominees are... seems to me if they are that bad, then having an open vote is the best course of action to put the matter to rest, expose these "awful" nominees once and for all. Of course, then they'd have to explain how getting 76% of the vote in California makes one a right wing extremist! The real issue is a group of obstructionist liberals insisting on substituting their judgment for that of the entire U.S. Senate. Typical of the "we know best for everyone" mindset that permeats so many of their positions. Funny, after all these years of the Democrats howling to "count every vote," they sure don't seem to want Senators to vote. Guess the right of a Senator to vote isn't as important as the right of a dead felon to vote in three different districts every election day?
Imagine the cries of racism if this sentence read "We're just as opposed to Priscilla Owen as we are to the black lady."
The Philly-Buster was not introduced as a Senate rule until @1830. It has Never been used (until Bush got elected -not selected[by the courts] ) to block an up or down vote on Judicial nominees.Fortas was already a Judge and when the game was played blocking a vote for him -it was a bi-partisan act blocking the manwho wrote the book on
Dissent and civil Disobedience.(hardly a unifieing/law
abidig thought) from being appointed Chief Justice. I am astonished at the number of blacks and Catholics who carry
the water for the Ku Klux Klan. (and the DNC that incorporated them.)
"I find it absolutely incredible that [Republican senators] would even think about destroying what is the bedrock of the republic, and that is the protection of minority rights," said Lowery,chairman of an alliance of 36 civil rights groups and churches called the Coalition for the People's Agendawho failed civics in high school.
Sorry 'Rev' but the correction was required as you're wrong on both counts. But I applaud you on picking up the talking points of that idiot Jon Corzine - who made the same erroneous claims on the senate floor and had to be corrected by Sen George Allen of Virgina.
So you got that 'Rev'? The Senate is to watch out for the interest of the STATE and the House is there to 'protect minority rights'. Oh and in the House, there is NO filibuster.
(I sure hope you did better in Divinity School than you did in Civics.)
The "Race Pimp" "Religous Left" Speaks.
Another point on the Fortas fillibuster--LBJ lined up his votes in the Senate and tried to ram the Fortas vote through WITHOUT DEBATE. There was a bipartisan fillibuster against the up or down
vote being taken until the nomination was debated.When LBJ saw there was going to be debate, he withdrew Fortas' nomination because of things he knew would stop Fortas from being confirmed. Fortas had to resign a couple of years later because of his dealings with a man under investigation for racketeering.
vaudine
What fillibuster? When was the last time anyone had to take to the floor and stay there in a non-stop talkfest? 1964?
There is no fillibuster. The GOP doesn't have the guts to force the demos to take to the cots.
One more "Dem"-a-gogue heard from. Odd how people can - with a straight face - pretend that further empowering a corrupt faction within a small group of self-anointed millionaire politicians is somehow the bedrock of freedom and liberty.
Fillibuster as an institution is somewhere north of the decorative cupola.
"The perilous nature of this situation" is why lifetime appointments are a problem.
Our constitutional system of Checks and Balances {paper-rock-scissors} is perilously out of balance.
The "rock" of the judiciary has swelled to a boulder.
The "paper" of the legislative branch is but a postIt note...
Since the the cloture vote was not used by the Senate until 1919, I'll conjecture it's introduction in 1919 had a "devastating" affect on said bedrock.
Not to mention when they decided to outlawing filibusters for items such as the budget.
This bum was there when the rats used the filibuster against Blacks again and again. These remarks prove he considers himself a rat before a blackman and a rat before an American and a rat before a reverend.
Could this be the real motivaiton behind LBJ and his penchant for wizzing in the Rose Garden? Never met him
but his rep is about that of Barny Frank or the hero of
Chapaquiddick.
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.