Bush needs to make it clear (Judges)

The Washington Times ^ | August 6, 2004 | Manuel A. Miranda

[neverdem]

The Washington Times
www.washingtontimes.com

---

Bush needs to make it clear

By Manuel A. Miranda
Published August 6, 2004

---

Just before closing shop until September, Senate Democrats began filibusters on four more circuit court nominees. The names and the faceless number (now 10) are ever less important with each new obstruction. What matters increasingly is the abuse of the Constitution in the unprecedented use of the filibuster to block the Senate from having an honest vote, up or down.

    That is an issue that President Bush and senatorial candidates will take to the American people this election. But what is the debate over judges really about? For the answer we need look no further than to the two indispensable men -- George Washington and, yes, Ronald Reagan.

    Washington's first criterion for selecting judges was simple: He would not nominate anyone who had not recently supported the new Constitution. He wanted no judge who would seek to rewrite or undermine it. So, too, Ronald Reagan. The 40th president told a partisan Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, Republican Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, that judges should be neither liberal nor conservative, but "constitutionalists."

    Washington thought the judiciary was the most important of the three branches of government because it would protect our liberties. For Mr. Reagan, liberty was less urgently at stake than the legitimacy of the courts and the Constitution itself.

[Defiant]

If this continues in the next term, and Frist can't find the balls to change the Senate rules on the filibuster, then Bush should just install them all. The Senate is required to give "advice and consent". It can't block the President's power to appoint judges by failing to act. He should declare that failing to act within a reasonable period of time is implied consent.

The Senate can still vote on the judges within that time frame (say, 6 months), so it will lose no power it already has under the Constitution. It just won't be usurping the President's powers any more.

[Question_Assumptions]

What Bush needs to do is to frame the judges issue, not in terms of abortion or affirmative action but in terms of judges saying that "under God" is unconstitutional and other such goofy rulings. The sort of judges that Kerry would appoint to uphold Roe are the same sort of judges that would create new laws from the bench.

[TBP]

Unfortunately, some of the worst judges -- Stevens, Souter, and O'Connor, to name just a few Supreme Court justices -- are Republican appointees, and I see nothing that indicates that Bush's appointees are or will be any different. As with most Republicans, some of his appointments are pretty good, some are terrible. He hasn't had a chance to appoint a Supreme Court justice yet, but is believed to want to appoint the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice -- which means he won't scrutinize the nominee as closely. (In fact, it's likely to be White House counsel Al Gonzales, although Miguel Estrada would be a far better choice.)

(And BTW, Estrada would be on the Federal bench right now if his name were Michael Street instead of Miguel Estrada. Note how many of the Bush appointees that the liberals and Democrats are holding up are minorities -- extremely disproportionate. What does that tell you?)

Three of Bush's four appointees to the Texas Supreme Court were pro-aborts and thus judicial activists.

[TBP]

What Bush needs to do is to frame the judges issue, not in terms of abortion or affirmative action but in terms of judges saying that "under God" is unconstitutional and other such goofy rulings.

But Bush can't frame it that way because he gave a Federal judgeship to a guy who assisted in removing a judge from office for acknowledging God. (There is an exchange in which he asks the judge if he plans to keep "acknowledging God" should he be retained.) When you appoint people who participate in that, you hve a hard time framing the issue in terms of rulings like "under God."

[Elpasser]

Why can't the Senate Republicans bundle up all of the filibustered judges in one vote, up or down, and let the Democrats start talking? They could do this after the budget is passed (and before the Nov election), thus tying up a lot of RATS who want to be home campaigning. Or during the Christmas holidays before the current Congress goes out of session?

If there's a Senate rule that prohibits this, I am unaware of it. I recall that the Senate frequently bundles all general officer promotions into a single "bill" which is approved by voice vote, typically.

[upchuck]

IMHO, this issue is just as important as the WOT.

However President Bush decides to remove this roadblock, he needs to get going so when SCOTUS positions open (maybe next summer?) we won't have a big drawn out knock down fight.

It really is,

All about the judges!

[pogo101]

bttt

[inquest]

The legitimacy of our courts, and especially the Supreme Court, comes from much more than black robes and a high bench. It comes from the people's belief that judges will act without regard to personal politics or bias. Senate Democrats, like John Kerry of Massachusetts and John Edwards of North Carolina, are pursuing an end to that judicial independence with unforeseeable, unintended consequences to a unique national strength.

This is an extremely naive statement. Judges have been imposing their personal ideologies for some time now. A President Kerry certainly wouldn't invent the concept of judicial activism, though he may very well make it too obvious to hide.

More than just complain about an obstructionist Senate, Mr. Bush needs to explain to the American people all that is at stake.

In particular, he should directly challenge the recalcitrant Senators to declare exactly what it is they're opposed to about the judges, and then publicly defend his nominees from whatever they have to say. It used to be in this country that politics involved this thing called "debate"...

[backtothestreets]

"Unfortunately, some of the worst judges -- Stevens, Souter, and O'Connor, to name just a few Supreme Court justices -- are Republican appointees"

I think you're on the mark with your assessment.  I believe people need to look at this further, especially Christians.  Seven of nine justices are Republican appointees, and at the time of their nomination and Senate confirmation, were described as conservative.  It is well understood the term conservative can be used to describe fiscal policy, social policy, morals, and other attributes.  I believe the term as used for the Supreme Court justices refers to their business policy.  Be it abortion, pornography, or television program content, these are businesses.  Even the recent decision by the court not to hear the case of the Massachusetts same sex marriage decision can arguably be tied to business when one considers the money interests of entitlements, marriage services, and all the related businesses.

The measure of conservative principles cannot look at issues like abortion or pornography alone.  Judges must be sought that have ruled against business interests where moral issues are involved.  Money is not everything, but money has a much higher bearing on court decisions then moral principles.  This is also true of legislation.  The recent introduction to protect the flag from burning as a form of protest did not address other forms of dishonoring the flag.  To name a couple, the flag is not to be used in the making of garments, displayed as patches on sports uniforms (that's reserved for military and emergency personal), or commercial purposes (those ads where companies wrap their product in the flag).  Flag Code: Respect for flag (http://www.usflag.org/us.code36.html#176)

Money, not Christian or social morals, is now the true measure of conservative judges and the politicians that appoint them.  The judges and politicians do have principles, I won't argue that, but where money is a factor, look for the judges and politicians to follow the money. When people hear the term conservative, they had better know in what context it is being used.

[TBP]

Seven of nine justices are Republican appointees, and at the time of their nomination and Senate confirmation, were described as conservative.

But not everyone bought it. I know that Young Americans for Freedom opposed O'Connor (I was on the NY State Board of YAF at the time and supported this position.) Howard Phillips of the Conservative Caucus testified against Souter.

[backtothestreets]

We are on the same page. Even the most conservative of judges has priorities among the various conservative principles. The secret is looking at how the judges stack the priorities.

I'd also like to see the day an appointment to the Supreme Court is not a judge. Their are many principled people that would base their determinations on the Constitution and moral responsibility before all else. People shouldn't be excluded simply because they are not judges.