The Battle Of A Lifetime
By Tom Barrett (03/09/05)
Democrats have refused to allow the full Senate to vote on most of President Bush's nominees for federal courts for over four years. If they are allowed to continue to obstruct the process of government, we will be cursed with a federal judiciary and a US Supreme Court dominated by extremely liberal justices for the next generation.
Who do we want to interpret our Constitution? We want justices who value the sanctity of life, justices who will say “No” to abortion on demand and to killing elderly and disabled citizens because they are “inconvenient.” We want justices who will interpret law instead of using their power unconstitutionally to create law. We want justices who will protect religious freedom and the family.
Who do the Democrats want as justices? They want bloodthirsty justices who will fabricate Constitutional “rights” to commit suicide, to murder “inconvenient” babies, and who will permit the killing of babies with birth defects. Because they can’t get liberal laws passed in Congress in a Constitutional manner, they want justices who will use the “back door” and create laws from the bench. And they are most eager to seat justices who will continue to systematically strip away religious freedoms (except for Muslims) and destroy marriage by allowing homosexuals or bisexuals to “marry,” including group marriages.
The role of the Senate is to advise the President on his nominees to all positions and consent to them as appropriate. This role was never intended by the Founders to be a forum for political hatchet jobs and harassment of nominees. The Founders envisioned reasonable discourse, and saw the Senate as a safeguard against the appointment of obviously unfit nominees, such as traitors or felons. They never intended for the Senate to use their power to block appointments of nominees because they disagreed with their political views.
Unfortunately, the Democrats in Congress appear to have never read the writings of the Founding Fathers, or the Constitution itself, for that matter. They are determined to use every underhanded method available to prevent reasonable me and women from being seated as justices. As I mentioned at the beginning of this article, if the Democrats succeed we will be doomed to a generation of judicial activism and misconduct.
Let’s look at the US Supreme Court. Chief Justice Rehnquist is very ill, and Justices Stevens, O'Connor and Ginsburg are all over 70 years old. It is very likely that at least two, and possible as many as four seats on the Supreme Court will need to be filled in the next four years. Do we want the Democrats to be able to block the appointments of reasonable, conservative justices to fill these vacancies?
So how are the Democrats, who are in the minority, able to obstruct the President from performing his Constitutionally mandated role of appointing justices? They have a secret weapon: RINO’s. RINO’s are Republicans In Name Only. They are wolves in sheep’s clothing. They are elected by people who think they are Conservatives, but who never bother to check their voting records.
RINO Senator Arlen Specter told a "Washington Post" reporter in a recent interview, "If we go to the nuclear option the Senate will be in turmoil and the Judiciary Committee will be hell." Liberal Republican Senators Lincoln Chaffee, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, joined by quasi-liberal Senator John McCain have come out firmly against the nuclear option. Senator Snowe told the "Portland Press Herald," "I just don't see how it's going to benefit us because ultimately it could create more wedges and political wounds." Snowe must be smoking left-handed cigarettes. Daschle, Kennedy and company created the wedges and wounds four years ago when they started filibustering President Bush's nominees.
So what is the “nuclear option” these senators refer to? It could be our secret weapon, if only the Republicans in the Senate have the courage to use it.
The press has dubbed it the “nuclear option,” but actually it is a simple, Constitutional procedure that requires a simple majority in the Senate. And it would end the ridiculous spectacle of the filibuster that makes the US Senate look like fools to the rest of the world.
First, what is the filibuster? According to the C-Span Congressional Glossary, “A Filibuster is the term used for an extended debate in the Senate which has the effect of preventing a vote.” (See LINK below.) You see, Senate rules don’t provide for a motion to force a vote. A vote can only occur only once debate ends. The term “filibuster” comes from the early 19th century Spanish and Portuguese pirates, "filibusteros", who held ships hostage for ransom.
Well, the Democrats have held the Senate hostage for four years now with the filibuster, and its time for Americans to tell their Senators, “Enough of this foolishness!” The House of Representatives used to allow this ridiculous practice, but has since abolished it. The Senate should do the same.
The most famous use of the filibuster was to prevent the passage of Civil Rights legislation (see LINK below).
It wouldn’t be so bad if there debate was actually taking place. That’s the way it was intended to be used. Then it degenerated to just talking whatever nonsense came into the obstructing senator’s head. You’ve seen the old movies where a senator reads from the telephone book for hours on end to prevent a vote. No more. Today Senate rules have been amended to allow the declaration of a filibuster to stop all debate and prevent an important vote from taking place. A majority of the Senate can be ready and willing to vote on an issue, but a disgruntled, petty minority can obstruct it.
The Senate Judiciary Committee is charged with examining the President’s nominees and reporting their recommendations to the full Senate. The Senate is then supposed to vote on whether the nominee will be confirmed. The Democrats know that if they allow a simple “up or down” vote on the floor of the Senate, the nominees will be confirmed; so they refuse to allow the vote.
The reason the nominees would be confirmed is that the American people didn’t just elect President Bush. They gave him a mandate in the form of giving him a majority of Republicans in both houses of Congress so that he could fulfill the promises he made to the American people. So the American people want these nominees confirmed, and the Democrats are defying the American people.
So what about this “nuclear option”? What can the real Republicans do to stop the filibuster foolishness that is making us the laughing-stock of the civilized world?
Well, to start with, the Democrats are scared to death of it: "If they, for whatever reason, decide to do this, it's not only wrong, they will rue the day they did it, because we will do whatever we can do to strike back," said incoming Senate Democratic leader Harry M. Reid. "I know procedures around here. And I know that there will still be Senate business conducted. But I will, for lack of a better word, screw things up."
What legal procedure could so frighten the Democrats that they would threaten to “do whatever we can do to strike back,” to “screw things up,” and to generally cease all cooperation with Republicans, no matter how important and issue might be to the interests of our nation?
Basically, it is a little-known parliamentary maneuver in which Republicans could request a ruling from the Senate's presiding officer, Vice President Dick Cheney, that filibusters against judicial nominees are unconstitutional. It’s been part of the Senate rules for decades. Not exactly the “nuclear Option” that the media describes. But then, the media, being primarily liberal, will always portray any conservative move in a negative light.
I won’t get death threats over this article, like I did last week when I wrote about homosexual marriage. But I will hear from lots of liberals who will say, correctly, that the Republicans have used the filibuster when they were in the minority. If that were the case today, I would still call the filibuster what it is: childish, foolish, and a mockery of the democratic process. It is the tyranny of the minority, and it should not be allowed.
We go around the world espousing democratic principles, yet we allow this travesty of democracy to exist in the upper house of our legislature. How does this look to the rest of the world? I have read editorials from developing nations mocking us for allowing the few to control the many.
If your senator is a Democrat, tell him or her that you’re tired of the same old good-old-boy Senate politics of the past. If your senator is a RINO, tell him you elected him or her to support conservative principles, not to play footsie with the Democrats. And if your senator is a real Republican, tell or her that you voted for conservative government last November, and that you expect the Republican to govern like members of a majority party and support what Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist calls the "Constitutional option." (See LINK below.)
Let the RINO’s vote with the Democrats (but remember that next election and throw the bums out). We only need fifty Republican’s with spines to make this work. Then the Vice-President can cast the tie-breaking vote. It won’t eliminate the filibuster (we can start a “Bust the Filibuster” campaign later), but it will get this archaic practice out of the judicial nominee business. As President Reagan said, "When you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat." Contact your senator and turn up the heat!
We can’t afford another generation of out-of-control justices who think that they control all three branches of government.
INTERNET RESEARCH:
http://www.c-span.org/guide/congress/glossary/filibust.htm
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_Cloture.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59877-2004Dec12.html
(Printer friendly version) Email: Tom Barrett
