Skip to comments.Announcing Free Republic's MARCH for JUSTICE II, April 7, 2005, Washington, D.C.!!
Posted on 03/15/2005 10:03:13 PM PST by Jim RobinsonEdited on 03/15/2005 10:05:05 PM PST by Jim Robinson. [history]
In October 1998, Free Republic marched on Washington demanding the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Thanks to our efforts, Clinton was impeached less than two months later.
Then, as now, our country stood at a Constitutional crossroad. This year we stand at the crossroad of what kind of judiciary we will have: One that is restrained by the Constitution, or one that abridges our rights by making it up as they go along.
President Bush and the Republicans in the Senate are gearing up for a showdown with the Democrats over his judicial nominees. The Democrats have used the filibuster in an unprecedented way to block judicial nominees from getting an up or down vote. Republicans, led by Majority Leader Bill Frist are getting ready to employ the Constitutional option--most likely in mid-April.
A simple majority is needed to implement the Constitutional option. However, even with a 55 vote majority, a victory by the Republicans is in doubt. Democrats, unswayed by their ever-diminishing numbers in the Senate, have threatened to almost totally shut down the Senate if the Republicans succeed.
The Democrats are desperate because the judiciary is their last hope to force their liberal, unconstitutional agenda on the American people. If the filibuster is broken, they know that President Bush will be able to nominate and get confirmed Supreme Court justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. If the filibuster holds, we'll get justices like Anthony Kennedy who look to foreign law and opinion to support their unconstitutional rulings.
Therefore, in order to support President Bush's judicial nominees, and to put the Senate and the courts on notice that We the People demand the Constitution be respected and maintained, we will march on Washington on Thursday, April 7, 2005.
We will rally at Upper Senate Park, directly across the Capitol between Constitution Avenue and Union Station, from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m.
Immediately after the rally, we will march on the offices of all 100 senators in groups of state citizens to impress upon them the seriousness of our cause.
We will be working to bring other conservative groups in to co-sponsor the rally. Speakers and co-sponsors will be announced as they confirm.
We will need to raise funds for the rally. The estimated cost is $8,000. Capitol Police rules do not allow us to seek donations at the rally, so we will have to raise the funds before. Click here to help out.
Lord willing, I'll be making the trip from California to D.C. for the rally. It's short notice, but this is too important to stand back. Our rights are at stake. Defend them now, or watch a justice like Anthony Kennedy look to foreign law and opinion one day to take away your Second Amendment and other rights.
What organizational entity do you want for this? Call Bob, please. It has worked before. We can work out the details, as you promote the event on FR>
Here it is, pinging and bookmarking
Kay R. Daly has asked me to maintain and use this list started by her as she is running Coalition for a Fair Judiciary, and now battling to get judicial nominees a vote on the Senate floor.
Please ping me or FReepmail me to get on or off the list.
Below are four CFFJ press releases from earlier this month. Two explain the unfairness of the Dems' delay in handling nominations of William Myers and Judge Boyle to different Courts of Appeals. The Third discusses Senator Salazar's (D-CO) apparent backtracking on a campaign promise to give judicial nominees an up or down vote in the Senate. The last press release is reaction to Senator Robert Byrd's (D-WV) comparison of possible GOP responses to Dem obstructionism to Adolf Hitler's tactics.
Don't be just a spectator, join the list and join the fight to get President Bush's nominees approved.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
Attend the March for Justice II.
Contribute to the cost of the rally (see above on the thread).
Help publicize the rally (apart from on this thread, always remember to mention date, time, location, and FR sponsorship) by:
Pinging other FReepers to the thread.
Call national and local talk shows, especially conservative talk shows, to discuss the judicial nominations fight and the need for the April 7 rally, mentioning FR as the sponsor.
Send letters to local papers denouncing the Dems' unfair refusal to allow a vote on the judges, condemning their unprecedented use of filibusters against judicial nominees, and promoting the FR-sponsored rally as a way to get fairness for the judges.
[Example of a letter, but try to personalize it for one or more of your local Senators and it is probably better to mention specific nominees (e.g., see below press releases) who have been stuck in nomination purgatory for an exceedingly long time, the length of which should be mentioned:
Dear Editor: Fairness and justice demand that judicial nominees get a vote in the Senate, without continued obstruction. Yet, our own Senator Philip A. Buster refuses to clearly state that he will allow the nominees the vote that they deserve. FreeRepublic.com and others will be holding a rally on April 7 at 11 am in the Upper Senate Park in Washington, D.C. to encourage him to do the right thing and let the judges go.]
Contact other conservative groups, local and national, to see if they will link to the FR thread and otherwise help with publicity. Possible groups to contact include traditional values and religious groups, second amendment groups, legal reform groups, conservative/libertarian lawyers groups such as the Federalist Society, business groups (Business Roundtable or National Assoc. of Manufacturers are possible, but business groups specifically organized to oppose lawsuit lotteries are natural allies), and pro-life groups.
Contact FReepers and other conservatives and Republicans in your area to organize car pools to the rally and arrange to stay at the same hotel, etc. Turn it into a social occasion to network with other conservatives in addition to the important rally and lobbying of Senators.
HERE ARE THE PRESS RELEASES
|Coalition for a Fair Judiciary||I've slightly reformatted the press releases for the web and only included one of the 501(c)4 notices, as all four releases are packaged together here, instead of repeating the same notice for each press release.|
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 1, 2005
CONFIRM WILLIAM MYERS
Day 654 in Nomination Purgatory
(Washington, DC) The Coalition for a Fair Judiciary today called on the Senate Judiciary Committee to vote William Myers out of committee without further delay. William Myers was first nominated to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on May 15, 2003 and a Judiciary Committee hearing on February 5, 2004.
It has been 654 days since William Myers was nominated to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The average length of time from nomination to confirmation used to be 87 days, said Kay Daly, president of the Coalition for a Fair Judiciary. It is time to stop talking about this nomination and vote on it. Whats left to ask this nominee his favorite color?
William Myers is the former Solicitor of the Interior William G. Myers III of Idaho and a highly respected attorney who has extensive experience in the field of natural resources, public lands, and environmental law. Myers has served in the Department of Energy, the Department of Justice and in private practice. His nomination enjoys widespread support from across the ideological and political spectrum.
As an avid outdoorsman and a committed conservationist, Mr. Myers has served as a volunteer for the National Park Service. Over that span, he has logged at least 180 days of volunteer service in numerous national parks, performing trail work, campsite cleaning, visitor assistance, and park patrols. Mr. Myers volunteered 7 days in the Bridger-Teton National Forest, where he worked on trail rehabilitation, tore down and packed out an illegal hunting camp, and conducted backcountry patrol.
Despite the widespread support for this very qualified nominee, extreme leftist organizations are pulling out the stops to obstruct this nomination, said Daly. The decision to hold yet another hearing on this nomination is ludicrous. Given recent comments from the leftists on the Judiciary Committee, it is apparent that whatever olive branch the chairman holds out to them will be shoved into a wood chipper.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 3, 2005
CONFIRM TERRENCE BOYLE
14 Years is Long Enough
(Washington, DC) The Coalition for a Fair Judiciary today called on the Senate Judiciary Committee to vote Terrence Boyle out of committee without further delay. Judge Boyle was first nominated to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals by President George H.W. Bush in 1991. President George W. Bush nominated Judge Boyle again on May 9, 2001.
It has been 14 years since Judge Boyle was first nominated to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. The average length of time from nomination to confirmation used to be 87 days, said Kay Daly, president of the Coalition for a Fair Judiciary. This has to be some kind of record for most time spent in political purgatory. It is time to stop talking about this nomination and vote on it.
Terrence Boyle has been a federal district court judge since 1984, when he was unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate. As Chief Judge since 1997 for the 4th Circuit, Judge Boyle was designated to sit with the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals a dozen times and has authored over 20 appellate opinions.
Judge Boyle has experience in government service, private practice and has even been appointed twice by Chief Justice Rehnquist to service on committees of the Judicial Conference. The Court of Appeals seat he has been nominated for has been designated a judicial emergency.
In 1984, Terrence Boyle was unanimously confirmed to the federal bench by the United States Senate, said Daly. It is the deterioration and politicization of the judicial nominations confirmation process that has held up this nominee and many others. Advise and consent has become delay and destroy much to the detriment of the federal judiciary.
Letters of support for Judge Boyle from across the political spectrum have consistently described him as fair and as a judge who reflects a respect for the role of the law rather than for the role of ideology.
Despite the widespread support for this very qualified nominee, extreme leftist organizations are pulling out the stops to obstruct this nomination, said Daly. Given recent comments from the leftists on the Judiciary Committee, it is apparent that whatever olive branch the chairman holds out to them will be shoved into a wood chipper.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 3, 2005
THE COLORADO SENATORS CONUNDRUM:
To Filibuster or Not to Filibuster
(Washington, DC) The Coalition for a Fair Judiciary today called on newly elected United States Senator Ken Salazar to keep his campaign promises and support an up or down vote for the Presidents judicial nominees. In a letter to President Bush yesterday, Senator Salazar demanded the withdrawal of the renominations of the judicial nominees filibustered by a minority of Senators.
It didnt take Ken Salazar very long to bow to the whims of extreme leftists and break the promise to his constituents to treat the Presidents judicial nominees with fairness, said Kay Daly, president of the Coalition for a Fair Judiciary. I am quite certain that the voters of Colorado took him at his word when candidate Salazar stated his support for a fair and simple up-or-down vote for judicial nominees. Senator Salazar seems to be singing a different tune than candidate Salazar by demanding the President withdraw his nominees from consideration. Political expedience, thy name is Ken Salazar.
In a November 8th, 2004 editorial, the Rocky Mountain News stated rather hopefully:
One of the most disgracefully partisan spectacles of President Bush's first term was the way Senate Democrats obstructed the appointment of his judicial nominees with filibusters.
In a pre-election interview with the News editorial board, Sen.-elect Ken Salazar said he favored an up-or-down vote in the full Senate on judicial nominations. We hope he sticks with that position even if his Democratic colleagues-to-be lean on him, as they are almost certain to do.
Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., likely chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has proposed that every nominee should have a committee hearing within 30 days, a committee vote no more than 30 days later, and a floor vote no more than 30 days after that. We urge Salazar to declare even before he takes office that he will support Specter's proposal.
And on MSNBC (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6089481/) candidate Salazar said the following:
As non-partisan as Salazar might hope to be, what would he do as senator if the Democratic leadership asked him to join a filibuster against a Bush judicial nominee? I would hope all nominees get up or down votes, Salazar answered. And the decision on an up-or-down vote should be based on whether or not the presidents nominee is qualified for the position.
He said a mandatory up-or-down confirmation vote on any nominee within 120 days of the nomination being submitted (an idea that Bush himself has advocated) is a thoughtful proposal and maybe one that should be pursued.
In perhaps the most stunning about-face, Senator Salazar, who as Colorados Attorney General, signed a letter dated January 30, 2004, supporting William Myers in his nomination to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, has now asked the President to withdraw his nominations in his letter dated March 1, 2005.
Candidate Ken Salazar embraced a reasonable approach to solving the obstruction nightmare that has plagued the judicial nominations process, said Daly. Senator Salazar abandoned his campaign promise in record time. Its a shame that his new buddies in the Senate Democratic caucus and the extreme leftist groups are more important to him than the constituents who put him in his office or the Constitution he swore to protect and defend.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 3, 2005
CFFJ CALLS ON BYRD TO APOLOGIZE FOR OUTRAGEOUS REMARKS
Compares Senate Republican Efforts to Halt Unconstitutional Obstruction of Judicial Nominees to Adolf Hitlers Nazi Germany
(Washington, DC) The Coalition for a Fair Judiciary today called on the United States Senator Robert Byrd to apologize for his outrageous statements in a speech delivered on the floor of the United States Senate in which he compared Senate Republican efforts to confirm judicial nominees with a simple majority vote rather than the unconstitutional supermajority imposed by a minority of Senators, to Hitlers Nazi Germany.
The Anti-Defamation League has condemned in the strongest terms possible the insensitive language used by Senator Byrd and we could not agree more, said Kay Daly, president of the Coalition for a Fair Judiciary. Given the Senators past affiliation with the Ku Klux Klan and his numerous attempts to change Senate rules in the past, the hypocrisy of his rant on the Senate floor is stunning.
Specifically, the statement released yesterday by the Anti-Defamation League read as follows:
Contact: Myrna Shinbaum, Todd Gutnick, both of the Anti-Defamation League
NEW YORK, March 2 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) expressed outrage at the remarks of West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd, who suggested that some Republican tactics on judicial nominations were similar to Adolf Hitler's use of power in Nazi Germany. In remarks on the Senate floor yesterday, Sen. Byrd compared a Senate rule cutting off debate on nominations to Hitler's use of constitutional means to push legislation through the German Reichstag at the start of the Nazi era.
Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, issued the following statement:
It is hideous, outrageous and offensive for Senator Byrd to suggest that the Republican Party's tactics could in any way resemble those of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party.
The Senator shows a profound lack of understanding as to who Hitler was and what he and his regime represented.
Senator Byrd must repudiate his remarks immediately and apologize to the American people for showing such disrespect for this country's democratic process.
Senator Byrd is no stranger to Senate rules changes, said Daly. It would appear, however, that he is in favor of changing the rules only when it suits his immediate political goals. To stand on the Senate floor and denounce Republicans in the most crude, despicable terms for actions he once supported and even led the charge on is the height of hypocrisy.
From the office of Senator John Cornyn (R-TX):
On January 15, 1979, Senator Byrd said, This Congress is not obliged to be bound by the dead hand of the past. . . . . The first Senate, which met in 1789, approved 19 rules by a majority vote. Those rules have been changed from time to time . . .. So the Members of the Senate who met in 1789 and approved that first body of rules did not for one moment think, or believe, or pretend, that all succeeding Senates would be bound by that Senate. . . . It would be just as reasonable to say that one Congress can pass a law providing that all future laws have to be passed by two-thirds vote. Any Member of this body knows that the next Congress would not heed that law and would proceed to change it and would vote repeal of it by majority vote.
In fact, Sen. Byrd led the charge to establish new Senate precedents in 1977, 1979, 1980, and 1987 - including a number of precedents that were designed specifically to stop filibusters and other delay tactics that were previously authorized under Senate rules or prior precedents:
In 1977, Senator Byrd led the establishment of a new precedent in order to break a post-cloture filibuster on a natural gas deregulation bill, stating:
I make the point of order that when the Senate is operating under cloture, the Chair is required to take the initiative under Rule XXII to rule out of order all amendments which are dilatory or which on their face are out of order." That precedent contravened prior precedent, which would have required the Chair to await a point of order from the floor.
In 1979, Senator Byrd led the establishment of a new precedent that allowed the Chair to rule on questions of germaneness raised during the consideration of appropriations bills - notwithstanding Senate Rule XVI, which states that all questions of germaneness on appropriations bills must be decided by the full Senate.
In 1980, Senator Byrd led the establishment of a new precedent to require an immediate vote, without debate, on any motion to go into executive session to consider a particular nomination. His new precedent was specifically designed, in his words, to "deal with a filibuster on the motion to proceed" to a nomination. Previously, a motion to proceed to a particular nomination was debatable. The new precedent was sustained by a vote of 54-38.
In 1987, Senator Byrd caused establishment of a new precedent declaring that certain tactics were to be construed as dilatory during roll call votes and therefore always out of order no matter what - even though the text of the Senate rules had clearly authorized such tactics. Previously, dilatory tactics were out of order only after cloture had been invoked.
The Coalition for a Fair Judiciary (www.fairjudiciary.com) is a 501(C)4 organization comprised of more than 75 grassroots organizations dedicated to supporting qualified, capable federal judicial nominees who are committed to fair and accurate interpretation of existing law. Judicial activism, characterized by rulings that create law rather than apply the law, has had a detrimental impact on American society and commerce. We seek to support federal judicial nominees who, in the words of Socrates, will hear courteously, answer wisely, consider soberly and decide impartially.
Well, thanks so much for spamming this thread with your own largess. Next time, try for the concept of "succinct".
I'm there if I don't have to work.
Tonk, I lean toward the theory that at least half the people in DC are enemies of the average American... but this is not the place to quibble over minor details.
As I mentioned previously, family health problems preclude going away from the swamps of Georgia, but I can send money, and will as soon as I shoo the wife-unit away for the day and clear the decks around here.
Just so you all know what we face? Previous links here:
Again, let me know how I can assist with your MFJII...specifics, please.
Great! Hope you can make it!!
I'll be there.
Sounds like a good idea to me!!
Great! See you in DC!!
And another $50 in from Pennsylvania!
Thank you, Pennsylvania!!
Just saw it. Would love to go if possible!
Wish I had time off and money bump, But prayers will have to do.
I have to figure out how to be there.
THANK YOU for the flag. I am giving serious thought to going.
Should it become impossible for me to attend I shall donate, even though I am a miserly, and cheap person, with minor resources. ;)
LOL! Well, thank you very much!
$50 from North Carolina "NORTH CAROLINA SUPPORTS MARCH FOR JUSTICE"
Thank you, North Carolina!!
And goodnight all.
Florida will be represented. Count me in.
Thanks. No capacity to join but always of interest.
Eagles up! I've got it on my calendar.
April 7th is a weekday, and I can't leave work like that. I will, however, donate substantively.
Keep me informed of developments. I will be there, even if I have to drive all night!
A few bucks in from GA, some more to come when payday hits.
Why not on a Saturday or Sunday?
For the most impact on the politicians, a weekday - when rally attendees can also visit their pols' offices - a weekday when they are in town is best.
For the best media coverage, a weekday is better.
It inconveniences us, and probably will preclude some from attending; but if we were to do it on a weekend the politicians and the media would have a great excuse to ignore us.
After reading through the thread, I'm going to take a suggestion from of the posts and mention this to the County Republican Women's Committee.........we have a meeting Saturday morning. I can't make the drive on my own, but if I can convince a couple of the other ladies.........well, just maybe we can join y'all.
I think it's a great idea. Tell 'em the cherry blossoms should be in bloom. :-)
LOL! That was the "hook" I was planning to use!
Jim, I can't make that date due to earlier commitments but I want to contribute $200 to help out. My question is will the $200 one time mess up my $32/month? Please advise.
Here's a hopeful BUMP that I can somehow get off of work and make the trip!
I am so excited that this is being planned! Go conservatives! Take back America!
Hey smokey. See my question to Jim. Do you know the answer?
As far as I know, a one time contribution has no impact on monthly donations.
On the secure form there is a box to check for "1 time" contribution and you write in what the contribution is for.
It's my understanding that the monthlies are automatically programmed to hit your account until you initiate a request to turn them off. So a credit card or other donation in to Jim should not impact your monthly at all.
A big thank you and a big BTTT!
My monthly is set up on my Master Card and is automatic. I was just afraid that a one time would be consrued by the system as a change and delete my monthly.
No need to be afraid, dear.
You could use another credit card, if it makes you feel better. But what's the worry? You can afford $200+/month after your Mel Gibson/Julia Roberts movie. :-)