The Judiciary and The Filibuster
Much of the political news of late has centered around Democrats in the Senate "filibustering" President Bush's judicial nominations to the federal courts. A filibuster is the term used for an extended debate in the Senate which has the effect of preventing a vote. In essence, a minority of senators can prevent a vote on the Senate floor by refusing to stop talking about the issue, bill, or nomination in question. Historically, the filibuster has been used very sparingly. It was famously used by Southern Democratic Senators to stop or stall civil rights legislation passed in the 1950s and 1960s. Never in the history of the Senate has a judge that has the support of a 51 vote majority of senators been denied an up or down vote. However, we currently have many Democrats in the United States Senate using the filibuster on a regular basis. They are preventing votes on ten judges that have been nominated by President Bush to be on Federal Circuit Courts around the country. Some nominees have been waiting up to two years to get a simple "yeah" or "nay" vote on the Senate floor. Since the Republicans hold a 55-seat majority in the Senate, the Democrats know that all of these nominees will get confirmed by at least a 51 vote majority, so in order to prevent these judges from getting confirmed they must resort to an unprecedented use of the filibuster.
Which brings us to what the media is calling the "nuclear option." The "nuclear option" is the Republican solution to ending the filibuster of judicial nominations. In essence, the Republicans, with a simple 51 majority vote can change the Senate rules to prevent the filibustering of judicial nominations. First off, let me object to the term used by most of the press. The "nuclear option" implies radical or significant change. In reality, this should be called the "constitutional option." As we all know from paying close attention in Mr. Studer's government class the Senate has an advise and consent power. That is, the president nominates someone to fill a government post, in this case a judge, and the Senate debates the nomination (advise) and votes on whether that person should be confirmed (consent). So really what the press is describing as "the nuclear option" is just a way to ensure that a simple vote is allowed to occur and that, ultimately, the majority decides. Is that radical? Is that extreme? Certainly not.
You may be asking yourself why liberals are expending so much time and effort filibustering judicial nominations that are not even for the Supreme Court. Why do they really care that much about ten judges that most people have never heard of and most people never will? The answer is that the court system is the most important branch of government for liberals today. Again, as we all know from Mr. Studer's class, the United States federal government is made up of three branches: the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. Liberals are basically out of power in two of the three branches. Elections in the past several years have given control of the White House, U.S. Senate, and the House of Representatives to Republicans and so in order to enact any part of their agenda Democrats must resort to the courts.
Liberals have often turned to the courts to impose there agenda when they cannot get elected legislatures and presidents to go along. Conservatives have always pointed to the Roe vs. Wade decision, which upheld a woman's right to have an abortion, as a perfect example of how liberals, who could not get elected members of Congress or any president to pass such legislation, were able to get the courts to impose their belief system on the whole of America.
A more recent example of how the left used an activist court to create law is found by looking at the Massachusetts Supreme Court's decision, in November of 2003, to allow gay marriages. The court said that the Massachusetts state constitution (written in the late eighteenth century by the way) somehow guaranteed the right of gay couples to marry. No vote was taken, it was not debated in the Massachusetts state capitol, and the elected representatives of the people of Massachusetts did not decide the issue. The court simply said that gay marriages have to be allowed. Period.
I hate to keep coming back to Mr. Studer's government class, but again knowledge of the basic structure of our government is essential to understanding this issue. As I already mentioned, our political system divides power between executive, legislative and judicial branches. It is the role of the legislature to make laws, the executive to provide for their implementation and enforcement and the judiciary to interpret (not make) the law. Constitutionally, judges cannot overturn laws they disagree with on policy grounds and replace them with something closer to their own views; to do so would be to overstep the legitimate powers of the judiciary and usurp those properly belonging to the legislature. Yet this is precisely what the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court did. A majority of judges made their ruling on the basis of their own personal opinions, substituting their policy preferences for the rule of law. Courts are not tasked with deciding the merits of political arguments, but instead are charged with interpreting and upholding laws they did not themselves make.
This is why the fight over judges is so crucial. Liberals need judges that will overturn laws they disagree with and impose their own beliefs on the rest of us. President Bush's filibustered nominees are strict constitutionalists and will not put their personal policy preferences above the law. Liberalism's agenda for America, abortion on demand, the legalization of gay marriage, higher taxes, and more government involvement in our lives, in general, cannot be implemented via the ballot box. There are simply not enough elected government representatives that will support liberalism's agenda, and as a result, the left is becoming more and more dependent on the judiciary to institute policy that cannot and will not be approved by a majority of Americans.
The filibustering of President Bush's nominations to the federal judiciary must stop and so it is time for the Republican leadership to exercise the "constitutional option." These good judges will fairly interpret the law, not create it. The left keeps losing elections, but can and will use sympathic judges to make us a more "progressive" country. That is why this fight is so important.
If you are interested, here are some informative links with additional background:
http://committeeforjustice.org/contents/confirmations/
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20050414-090344-7389r.htm
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050311/news_lz1e11rappapo.html
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/118bpwmh.asp
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0420/p01s02-uspo.html
Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com
~ The Conservative Guy
Which brings us to what the media is calling the "nuclear option." The "nuclear option" is the Republican solution to ending the filibuster of judicial nominations. In essence, the Republicans, with a simple 51 majority vote can change the Senate rules to prevent the filibustering of judicial nominations. First off, let me object to the term used by most of the press. The "nuclear option" implies radical or significant change. In reality, this should be called the "constitutional option." As we all know from paying close attention in Mr. Studer's government class the Senate has an advise and consent power. That is, the president nominates someone to fill a government post, in this case a judge, and the Senate debates the nomination (advise) and votes on whether that person should be confirmed (consent). So really what the press is describing as "the nuclear option" is just a way to ensure that a simple vote is allowed to occur and that, ultimately, the majority decides. Is that radical? Is that extreme? Certainly not.
You may be asking yourself why liberals are expending so much time and effort filibustering judicial nominations that are not even for the Supreme Court. Why do they really care that much about ten judges that most people have never heard of and most people never will? The answer is that the court system is the most important branch of government for liberals today. Again, as we all know from Mr. Studer's class, the United States federal government is made up of three branches: the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. Liberals are basically out of power in two of the three branches. Elections in the past several years have given control of the White House, U.S. Senate, and the House of Representatives to Republicans and so in order to enact any part of their agenda Democrats must resort to the courts.
Liberals have often turned to the courts to impose there agenda when they cannot get elected legislatures and presidents to go along. Conservatives have always pointed to the Roe vs. Wade decision, which upheld a woman's right to have an abortion, as a perfect example of how liberals, who could not get elected members of Congress or any president to pass such legislation, were able to get the courts to impose their belief system on the whole of America.
A more recent example of how the left used an activist court to create law is found by looking at the Massachusetts Supreme Court's decision, in November of 2003, to allow gay marriages. The court said that the Massachusetts state constitution (written in the late eighteenth century by the way) somehow guaranteed the right of gay couples to marry. No vote was taken, it was not debated in the Massachusetts state capitol, and the elected representatives of the people of Massachusetts did not decide the issue. The court simply said that gay marriages have to be allowed. Period.
I hate to keep coming back to Mr. Studer's government class, but again knowledge of the basic structure of our government is essential to understanding this issue. As I already mentioned, our political system divides power between executive, legislative and judicial branches. It is the role of the legislature to make laws, the executive to provide for their implementation and enforcement and the judiciary to interpret (not make) the law. Constitutionally, judges cannot overturn laws they disagree with on policy grounds and replace them with something closer to their own views; to do so would be to overstep the legitimate powers of the judiciary and usurp those properly belonging to the legislature. Yet this is precisely what the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court did. A majority of judges made their ruling on the basis of their own personal opinions, substituting their policy preferences for the rule of law. Courts are not tasked with deciding the merits of political arguments, but instead are charged with interpreting and upholding laws they did not themselves make.
This is why the fight over judges is so crucial. Liberals need judges that will overturn laws they disagree with and impose their own beliefs on the rest of us. President Bush's filibustered nominees are strict constitutionalists and will not put their personal policy preferences above the law. Liberalism's agenda for America, abortion on demand, the legalization of gay marriage, higher taxes, and more government involvement in our lives, in general, cannot be implemented via the ballot box. There are simply not enough elected government representatives that will support liberalism's agenda, and as a result, the left is becoming more and more dependent on the judiciary to institute policy that cannot and will not be approved by a majority of Americans.
The filibustering of President Bush's nominations to the federal judiciary must stop and so it is time for the Republican leadership to exercise the "constitutional option." These good judges will fairly interpret the law, not create it. The left keeps losing elections, but can and will use sympathic judges to make us a more "progressive" country. That is why this fight is so important.
If you are interested, here are some informative links with additional background:
http://committeeforjustice.org/contents/confirmations/
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20050414-090344-7389r.htm
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050311/news_lz1e11rappapo.html
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/118bpwmh.asp
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0420/p01s02-uspo.html
Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com
~ The Conservative Guy
posted by The Conservative Guy at
10:46 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home