Liberals Struggle To Justify Blocking Estrada

People we need to see the larger picture here on this. The president is in the 2nd half of his 2nd term and he is still waiting for judges that he has appointed to the federal bench to be confirmed. You ask what is the problem here? It is the job and duty of member of Congress AS IS SPELLED OUT IN THE CONSTITUTION to ensure that judgeships are filled. Why aren't Americans holding these people to the fire on this? The culprits who are not passing these judges on or even admitting them for review should be in jail....no argument can go against this. It may seem regal to think that a member of Congress should be in jail for what I have stated but by virtue of the constitution it is their duty bestowed upon them by the people of the United States and forefathers before them who has written this into law. What happens to those that do not hold true to the Constituion and fulfill their duties as is perscribed in it? Any insight?

The problem that the rats have here is that,the rat media is losing control of the daily agenda. In the past, the rats could say a nominee was not qualified because " we say he's not qualified." More and more every week and certainly now, every month, the rats are finding that they can not count on the rat media to get their water carried.

That includes the Internet and FR, but it really traces to unregulated talk radio. Journalism is regulated talk radio--regulated by conformity to The New York Times in lieu of any self-evident benchmark for objectivity.
The First Amendment assigns the decision as to the veracity and significance of a speaker or writer to the (actual or potential) listener or reader, giving the government no role at all. There is no more justification for regulation of a web site than there is of a speaker standing on a soap box or of a printing press.
Regulation of radio transmission was government's way of creating broadcasting; without that regulation there would be no centralized radio transmitters known as "broadcasters" who had a license to be hearable over a wide area.
And if by some miracle web site publishing had been invented before wireless communication, the idea of granting preferred addresses to a few individuals who could be heard (and seen on TV) via cheap receivers whereas we-the-people were stuck with web site addresses would have been seen for the blatant government power grab that in fact it is.
The portion of radio talk broadcasting which is not in thrall to the NY Times/NPR brand of "objectivity" is the only part of broadcasting which is not reliably liberal. If Republicans don't have speech rights on radio, Democrats shouldn't either--and that means no broadcast journalism.

The Democrats have decided, with some logic, that the courts are the key bit of territory in their struggle over the political direction of the country -- the hill their troops must hold at any cost. The last thing they're likely to do is permit conservatives to reach federal appellate positions without a fight.

It's still worse (for them) that Estrada comes from one of the groups the Left depends on for electoral support. Given the way they fought the Clarence Thomas nomination, it's no surprise that they've redoubled their efforts to prevent a conservative Hispanic from being confirmed.

Dominance of the federal judiciary ought not to confer the power to rewrite the Constitution at whim... but that's the way it's been used, since the New Deal.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason:
http://palaceofreason.com

Dear President Bush,
With the Surpeme Court session getting ready to close, it may well be time for perhaps the most important domestic decision of your presidency: the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice(s). The main reason why I supported you in 2000 and why I wanted Daschle out of power in 02 (and 04) has to do with the courts. I want America courts to interpret law, not write law. During your presidential campaign you said Thomas and Scalia were your two model justices. Those are excellent models. The High Court needs more like them. Clarence Thomas recently said to students that the tough cases were when what he wanted to do was different from what the law said. And he goes by the law. This should be a model philosophy for our justices. Your father, President Bush lost his reelection campaign for 3 main reasosn, as far as I can see. 1. he broke the no new taxes pledge 2. David Souter 3. Clinton convinced people we were in a Bush recession (which we had already come out of by the time Clinton was getting sworn in)

I urge you to learn from all three of these: 1. on taxes, you're doing great. Awesome job on the tax cut. 2. good job so far on judicial appointments. I want to see more of a fight for Estrada, Owen, and Pickering, but I commend you on your nominations. 3. by staying engaged in the economic debate you'll serve yourself well

I have been thoroughly impressed with your handling of al Queida, Iraq, and terrorism. You have inspired confidence and have shown great leadership.

But I want to remind you that your Supreme Court pick(s) will be with us LONG after you have departed office. I urge you to avoid the tempation to find a "compromise" pick. Go for a Scalia or Thomas. Don't go for an O'Connor or Kennedy. To be specific, get someone who is pro-life. Roe v Wade is one of the worst court decisions I know of, and it's the perfect example of unrestrained judicial power.

I know the temptation will be tremendous on you to nominate a moderate. But remember who your true supporters are. I am not a important leader or politician. I am "simply" a citizen who has been an enthusiatic supporter of you. I am willing to accept compromise in many areas of government but I will watch your Court nomiantions extremely closely. What the Senate Dems are doing right now is disgusting, but as the President you have the bully pulpit to stop it. Democrats will back down if you turn up serious heat on them.

Moreover, I think public opinion is shifting towards the pro-life position. Dems will want you to nominate a moderate, but almost all will vote against you anyways. Pro-choice Repubs will likely still vote for you if you nominate a Scalia, after all, you campaigned on it. So Mr. President, I urge you to stick with your campaign statements and nominate justices who believe in judicial restraint, like Scalia and Thomas.

Happy Memorial Day and may God bless you and your family.

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.