Posted on 05/23/2005 5:45:44 AM PDT by OESY
"As a check and balance on the Federal Judiciary, the Constitution allows Congress to limit the Court's jurisidiction as it sees fit. High time to excercise this perorgative"
Yes, but it has become too lazy and/or timid to do so. That is why we conservatives must push our friends in the legal community--especially the Federalist Society--to support what many will see as a heresy, but is in fact the only way to save the Republic--that is the ABOLITION of judicial review, an institution the Framers never intended, that is why it is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. This is the only way the American people can insure that they are free of judicial tyranny. Having a little bit of judicial review is like being a little bit pregnant; it's bound to get worse over time.
WSJ: Sun rises in east -- Democrats see picks impacting women, children.
Congressional legislation does the trick. The courts, other than the Supreme Court, are creations of Congress.
Circuit Courts of Appeal are created by 28 USC 44
Federal District Courts are created by 28 USC 133
Basically we've had almost entirely liberal judges appointed to the courts for the past 60 years. Even when Republican presidents were in office they usually had to deal with Democrat-dominated senates. So Republican presidents compromised--meaning they appointed half RINOs and half Democrats--while Democrat presidents appointed more and more machine politicians and leftist activists to the bench.
Not even Ronald Reagan succeeded in reversing this unhappy trend, in which our courts have gotten more and more radical, unaccountable to the voters or the Constitution, and out of control.
Bush is the first Republican president to actually hold out for decent appointments. Rather than compromise in his first term, as Eisenhower, Nixon, and Reagan finally did, he has stuck with his nominees. As a result there has been deadlock for four and a half years. That's better than giving in and appointing an Earl Warren or a David Souter to the Supreme Court. Hopefully we are reaching the breaking point, and hopefully it will break our way.
This reminds me of the fight over reapportionment in Texas. It's OK when the Democrats stack the deck and gerrymander, but when the voters endorse a change of parties, the Democrats have to be dragged along kicking and screaming about how unfair their opponents are.
LOL.
This is precisely why courts shouldn't be legislating. If they did their jobs according to original intent, then we wouldn't be having this fight. These days the only reason who you vote for matters is that they have influence over the make up of the courts. The more courts legislate, the more intense the fight over nominations becomes. It's inevitable. Judges are our new elite rulers, so what little say we have on just WHO rules is of paramount importance.
Yes, just because they where picked by a Republican does not mean they are conservative.
Not then and not necessarily now either.
Like you said they had the Democrats to deal with. They also had Rino chairmen of the Judiciary Committee to deal with who have as much to say as anyone about who your judges are.
Then you have the trend of Republican senators and presidents being more interested in the business or money side of politics than the social side.
They failed to realize that just because some issue might not have a monetary impact on the country that moral and social issues could have a dramatic impact on Domestic tranquility.
In other words they would let the Democrats trade them out of some good nominees for Democratic support of some bill big business wanted passed.
As usual when they deal with the Democrats they are not very good at it.
You can say that again. That's why I've been willing to give Bush credit. As yet he hasn't managed to make any appointments, but so far at least he hasn't allowed himself to be caught in the usual bipartisan-compromise-with-the-Democrats trap, which always ends up with the Democrats taking 90% and the Republicans 10%.
If the Republicans are smart they'll push for the vote while they got the big hammer of these base closings to use for leverage to secure votes.
A compromise would be just as bad at his point that an out and out loss.
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.