Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judicial 'litmus tests': Tom Jipping explains how Democrats nail Jello to trees
WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Friday, April 11, 2003 | Tom Jipping

Posted on 04/11/2003 2:20:55 AM PDT by JohnHuang2

It's good to know where politicians stand on important issues. Senate Democrats say they are filibustering Miguel Estrada's appeals-court nomination because they don't know enough about him. But wait, this week they said they will filibuster Priscilla Owen's nomination because they know everything about her. Nailing down a principle here is like nailing Jello to a tree in July.

Miguel Estrada received the American Bar Association's highest "well qualified" rating. He appeared alone before the Senate Judiciary Committee last year for nearly seven hours, answering more than 100 questions. He properly refused to discuss his personal views on issues or precedents likely to come before him as a judge. Only two Judiciary Committee Democrats asked any follow-up questions, only one senator asked for a private meeting with Mr. Estrada, and Democrats refused an offer of an additional hearing. Now they filibuster because they don't know anything about the nominee.

Priscilla Owen received the American Bar Association's highest "well qualified" rating. She appeared alone before the Senate Judiciary Committee for nearly seven hours, answering more than 100 questions. She properly refused to discuss her personal views on issues or precedents likely to come before her as a judge. Democrats actually objected when Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, scheduled a second hearing for Justice Owen. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said on April 8 that this was an "unprecedented" hearing that did not "change the facts before us." Now Democrats filibuster because they know everything about the nominee.

Is there a standard in the house? Is there a principle anywhere in the vicinity? It should be obvious by now that, on orders from their leftist constituency groups, Senate Democrats have only one goal. They do not care about an independent judiciary, they do not care about the rule of law. They want a judiciary that will, by hook or by crook – by any means necessary – deliver the leftist political agenda. Judges who even might respect the American people, their values and their decisions are unqualified "extremists" and "activists" and subject to filibuster.

Speaking to a group of Iowa Democrats on April 8, presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., promised that, if elected, he would nominate to the Supreme Court only supporters of abortion rights and the Roe vs. Wade decision. There's that agenda again. But, Sen. Kerry said, "that is not a litmus test." It is not a litmus test, he said, to demand fidelity to something already said to be "a constitutional right." It would be a litmus test, however, to seek judicial nominees who would "undo a constitutional right." In other words, seeking judges who agree with me is not a litmus test; seeking judges who disagree with me is a litmus test. Figure that one out.

I don't suppose anyone asked Sen. Kerry if it would have been a litmus test to seek the very same kind of judge – the kind unwilling to find unwritten "rights" in a written Constitution – in 1972, before Roe vs. Wade. Before there was a "constitutional right" to "undo." Probably not.

The filibuster against Miguel Estrada, and now the filibuster against Priscilla Owen, are being led by Sen. Leahy, who said in June 1998 that he would "fight against any filibuster on a judge." They are being led by Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., who said in June 1995 that senators should oppose nominee filibusters "even if they intend to vote against the nomination itself." They are being led by Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., who in June 1995 condemned nominee filibusters. He said that preventing nominees from receiving a fair vote "will make it even more difficult to attract good, qualified people to public service."

Anti-filibuster senators leading filibusters. Filibusters because we don't know enough, filibusters because we know everything. It's a litmus test if you are conservative, but not a litmus if you are liberal. Yes means no, "alone" doesn't mean alone, the Constitution is whatever the liberal judges say it is.

They say if you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything. The politicizing of justice, sacrificing the rule of law on the altar of politics, is putting liberty itself at risk.


TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: tomjipping
Friday, April 11, 2003

Quote of the Day by Redbob

1 posted on 04/11/2003 2:20:55 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All
REMEMBER

CAN PREVENT

FUNDRAISERS

.

PLEASE SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC
Donate Here By Secure Server
Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
or you can use
PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD-
It is in the breaking news sidebar!

2 posted on 04/11/2003 2:21:42 AM PDT by Support Free Republic (Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Shameless hypocrites, one and all.

Two things:

Republicans need to either declare the filibuster of judicial nominees what it is, unconstitutional; or they should at the least reinstitute a real filibuster,--not this pansy faux-filibuster the RATS are coasting on right now.

Secondly, the White House and the Senate Judiciary Committee should be giving the Senate a progressively more conservative new nominee every day...make them filibuster them all.
3 posted on 04/11/2003 2:26:04 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
The filibuster against Estrada is the most hypocritical thing I've ever seen in politics. The media, however, isn't reporting DIDDLY.
I've wondered the same thing about forcing these jerks to run a REAL filibuster - let them get someone up to the podium 24/7, and can only conclude the reason it hasn't been done is that the public would blame the Republicans for forcing the Senate to sit on their thumbs during the war on Iraq.
Now, however.... I'm with you. Force them to suffer if they want to keep up this charade.
You know, the harder I try to be non-partisan, the more IMPOSSIBLE it seems to get to support anything Democratic. The Dems need some new leadership, and I don't mean Pelosi.
4 posted on 04/17/2003 9:53:20 PM PDT by DED (Liberals Never Learn. *LNL*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson