Pledge ruling shows why we need conservative judges

My, how quickly Democrats on Capitol Hill rushed to condemn the federal appeals court panel that ruled this week that the Pledge of Allegiance, because of the phrase "under God," is unconstitutional.

"I see no reason," said House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, the Missouri Democrat, "to change the time-tested, venerable pledge that is such a central part of our country's life and our nation's heritage."

"I think we need to send a loud and clear message," said Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, the South Dakota Democrat, "that the Congress disagrees. The Congress is going to intervene, the Congress is going do all it can to live up to the expectations of the American people."

Yet, the party of Gephardt and Daschle bears much of the blame for outrageous rulings rendered by liberal, activist courts, like the notorious 9th Circuit, based in (where else) San Francisco.

For the Democrats have used every maneuver, every artifice to delay, if not block altogether, the appointment of mainstream conservative jurists to the federal bench.

Judges who would not strike down the Pledge of Allegiance because it describes the United States as "one nation, under God." Because it offends the not-so-tender sensibilities of atheists.

Indeed, it has been more than a year since President Bush unveiled his first 11 nominees for appointments to the federal bench. As of last month, eight of those nominees hadn't even gotten the courtesy of a hearing in the Daschle Senate.

All told, the president has nominated 100 able individuals for federal trial and appeals court seats. Yet, the Senate Democrat majority has seen fit to confirm little more than half so far.

Meanwhile, the federal courts are in crisis mode, according to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Not because of the high number of vacancies on the federal bench (there have been more vacancies in times past). But because there are more key vacancies than ever before, creating what the administrative office refers to as "judicial emergencies."

Some 38 trial and appeals courts around the country were in a state of emergency last month, based on the sizes of their caseloads and the length of time they have been operating without a full roster of judges. Last May, when President Bush made his first nominations, there were 33 judicial emergencies. A year earlier, there were 21.

The party of Daschle could hardly care less, apparently, how many judicial seats remain unfilled. How many federal courts find themselves in emergency situations. The party is more concerned with blocking Bush nominees who are too conservative for their taste. With keeping open as many judicial vacancies as possible with an eye toward the 2004 presidential election.

The unspoken hope is that the voters will turn Bush out of the White House, while Democrats retain control of the Senate (if they do not lose the upper chamber this November).

With both a Democrat in the White House and a Democrat majority in the upper chamber – for the first time since 1992 – the party of Daschle could elevate judges to the federal bench who reflect its left-leaning ideology.

Like those who dominate the 9th Circuit. Who have turned the Constitution on its head. Who misread the First Amendment's guarantee of "free exercise" of religion to mean freedom from religion.

Who interpret the so-called "establishment clause" to prohibit even the mere mention of God, the Almighty, the Creator, in the public square.

Who disdain this nation's Judeo-Christian heritage. Who ignore the fact that this Republic was founded by men whose words, whose deeds were informed by religion.

Indeed, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer pointed out that the "Declaration of Independence refers to God or the Creator four different times."

Which means that the rogue 9th Circuit probably would rule that document unconstitutional. Or declare that school children didn't have to study the Declaration because of its inappropriate religious references.

This is where liberal, activist jurisprudence has led us. And that's why the federal courts need to be leavened with the kind of conservative judges that President Bush already has nominated.

Judges who won't find it odious to utter the phrase, "So help me God," when they're sworn to the bench.

Perkins is their token for conservatives and minorities, if they dropped his column I think it would push me over the edge to drop my subscription. Although I might get some flack from Sheryle over the market ads and coupons.

There is a way, of course, to unplug the pipeline.

Most curious, that the Senate plurality leader, Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy of the Senate Judiciary Committee, while all the time professing to be in favor of a strong judiciary, both stand foursquare on the principle that if the judicial nominee does not meet their litmus test, there won't even be a floor vote by the Senate.

The judge who wrote the opinion, who is actually on "judicial reserve" and does not normally sit on the full bench, was called back because of the excessive case load on the 9th District Circuit Court. Of course, part of that case load is the number of cases that are remanded to them by the Supreme Court, or frivolous lawsuits that they choose to entertain, rather than dismiss out of hand.

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.