Judicial Issues # 2
Showtime: Connecting the Dots
The pressure is on Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist to
make a decision regarding the so called "nuclear option," which is also
more appropriately called the "constitutional option."
The "constitutional option" is what it really is and the "nuclear option"
is a reference to what the filibustering Democrats claim they will do to
the institution of the Senate if Senate majority leadership follows
through and returns the judicial nominating process to its correct
constitutional role as prescribed.
In so many words, Conservative Union President Richard Lessner is right.
If Senator Frist wants to be seen by the people as a leader who is able to
exercise political leadership qualities that reach beyond the classic and
disturbing senatorial stalemate that has been created by left-wing
obstructionist Democrats with the judicial nomination process, then he
needs to deliver the senate rule change that would guarantee the President
of the United States an up or down vote on judicial nominees.
Whether Senator Frist has presidential aspirations or not, it is important
for the American people that he and the Republican majority in the Senate
somehow deliver this rule change to the people (of all three political
factions).
Delivering the rule change may not guarantee the Senator Majority Leader
the nomination in 2008, but not delivering will surely make the Republican
nomination for him virtually impossible.
Polls conducted in March by the Judicial Confirmation Network
reveal a solid majority of Americans support the rule change. The
polls included 800 registered voters from all three political factions;
Republican, Democrat, and Independent.
And the striking things about the polls were not only the overall margins
in favor of the rule change, but the margins within each political
faction.
For instance, 82% of all 800 registered voters agree that qualified judges
should get an up or down vote in the Senate.
The breakdown is even more interesting.
Republicans polled, agree with an up or down vote 83 percent to 6 percent;
while Independents agree 80% to 11%; and even the registered Democrats
polled agree 81% to 13% on this issue.
Regarding the constitutional elements involved in this important battle:
78% (up against only 12%) of those polled agree that senators have a
constitutional duty to vote on judicial nominees. And the political
affiliation breakdown on that issue is just as solid. 85% of
Republicans agree along with 78% of Independents and 77% of Democrats.
It may come as a surprise to the left-wing intellectual mob, but the
people, regardless of political affiliations, instinctively understand
from every angle the importance of this issue regarding judicial nominees
from the executive branch.
The people, the majority of us, obviously do not believe the left-wing
media and the Dem's characterization of conservative judges who exercise
constitutional restraint and clarity, as being extreme ideologues who are
out of the mainstream just because like a broken record some Democratic
senators keep characterizing those judges with that "extreme" spin.
Referring to the polls, Judicial Confirmation Network Counsel Wendy
Long said,"They want Senators to do their jobs and hold straight, up or
down votes on nominees based on their qualifications, not the baseless,
negative rhetoric of the left."
Yesterday (4-14-05) the President spoke out directly on the nomination
process and where he stands on this issue could not be any more clear:
"I think my judges should get
an up or down vote, period."
One does not have to be a constitutional or legal expert, or a professor
of law at an Ivy League Community College to understand this issue and see
how pathetically baseless are the Democratic leadership spins.
Not to mention their recent threats to shut down the business of the
Senate.
Especially the argument that the President is seeking "absolute power."
As the Family Research Council pointed out last week, Founding
Father Alexander Hamilton explained the separation of power as it is meant
to exist on this issue, not as it is supposed to be mischaracterized and
misused by the minority party.
Hamilton said: "It will be the office of the President to nominate, and,
with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint. There will, of
course, be no exertion of choice on the part of the Senate. They may
defeat one choice of the Executive, and oblige him to make another; but
they cannot themselves choose, they can only ratify or reject the choice
of the President."
Clearly, in plain English, the filibuster that does not allow an up or
down vote is not included in the Senate's advise and consent role
designated in the Constitution for judicial nominees.
Even if you are not a constitutional scholar, you can still give it a
shot: Read that phrase closely - "There will, of course, be no exertion of
choice on the part of the Senate" - and see if you, just like a
constitutional scholar or political consultant appearing on TV, can
understand what it means.
Why the radical left-wing Democrats in the Senate are using the filibuster
and using every communication spin they can think of - as well as those
politically suicidal threats of withdrawing from doing the people's
business if the Senate leadership, as it should, calls their bluff and
changes the filibuster rule regarding judicial nominees - is because the
filibuster is the only way the Dems can exert their "choice."
Do not believe House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi when she says that
changing the filibuster rule is a grab for "absolute power" and against
the "spirit of the institution regarding the minority."
Even if you are inclined to feel sorry for the minority for losing the
election and having no ideas in the policy arena, that is your right to do
so. Yet, you should still be able to see and have the courage
to admit that the filibuster in this case is what is against the spirit of
the institution, and worse, the written intent of the constitution.
In a public relations move last week the Dems pretended to step back from
the ranting and confirmed a Bush appointee, yet this does not change the
situation.
If they think this move will make it in the eyes of the public more
difficult for the majority to rationalize changing the rule and therefore,
retreat into capitulation, they are wrong.
Neither the majority nor the President have anything to rationalize on
this issue.
The polls reveal that the public already sees the problem. In a
manner of speaking the Senate Dems last week only released one of many
judicial hostages.
And last week the Daily Standard printed a revealing interview with
the heads of two left-wing organizations that play powerful roles in
directing the Dem's obstructionist policies on this issue; the Alliance
for Justice and People for the American Way.
If you keep in mind what founding father Alexander Hamilton said (quoted
above on this site) regarding the constitutional role of the Senate in the
judicial nominating and confirmation process, you will clearly see that
the Dems are exercising a cynical breach of constitutional law while
trying to spin it to make it sound like the filibuster is a "right" of the
minority in the confirmation process.
The Dems are manipulating the filibuster as a way to force their "choice"
on the nominating process far beyond and in contradiction to what was
written for them to exercise in the constitution.
When asked by Hugh Hewitt for the Daily Standard if People for
the American Way and the Alliance for Justice would urge the
use of the filibuster to block the nomination of three different judges,
both Nan Aron and Ralph Neas answered, "absolutely."
More revealing are some of their explanations for doing so. Aron
said, "...if this president were to sit down with the Democrats, I assume,
I don't know for sure, but I assume that they would say 'Mr. President,
this guy shouldn't be elevated. His views are just too outside the
constitutional mainstream for us.' If he were to do that and come up
with someone else that met the requirement of the Democrats, the person
would sail through."
Sounds good in the world of communication spin, yet this is not, and
should not be the President's constitutional role in the balance or
separation of powers.
This misused and illegal
filibustering has allowed for that "requirement of the Democrats" (the
minority) to force its way into the confirmation process wherein the
consitutional law cannot be played out as prescribed because an up or down
vote as called for does not take place, that is, unless the President
capitulates to ("the exertion of") in this case the minority party's
"choice."
If the minority cannot via their advise and consent role, somehow convince
enough members of the majority to agree with them for the up or down vote
on someone they might think is "extreme" - or whatever problem they have
with the nominee - then Democracy and the balance of power, no matter how
the liberals spin it, has functioned as it was intended via the
Constitution.
While activist judges manipulate and confuse the intent of the
constitution with rulings that provide the minority with powers they
cannot exercise legislatively as prescribed by true democratic rule, the
filibuster became the legislative minority's hostile method of trying to
force the Executive Branch to be able only to nominate judges the minority
believes would be more receptive to further that dangerous trend.
While Pat Buchanan and Phyllis Schlafly's idea of restricting the court's
decision-making jurisdiction via Congress is a good one, in the mean time
though, getting rid of the filibuster within the judicial confirmation
process will be a victory and serve the majority of the American people as
they believe and understand the constitution.
