Posted on 03/22/2005 5:40:41 PM PST by RWR8189
As chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, I had the wonderful opportunity to talk to people all over America as I campaigned last year for our Senate candidates. No matter where I traveled across our great nation, whether it was South Dakota or Louisiana, South Carolina or Florida, again and again, I found myself talking to folks about the fair consideration of judicial nominees.
Whenever I spoke, my point was always this: Judges ought to apply the law, not invent it, and President Bush's nominees should be accorded the fairness of an up or down vote in the Senate when favorably voted out of the Judiciary Committee. And an interesting thing happened each time I would say this to crowds across America: they cheered, loudly.
Sen. Harry Reid and his Democratic comrades brought the issue of judicial nominees to the forefront of our business in the Senate last week. The Democrats are now threatening to slow or even stop Senate business if Republicans go ahead with our plans to end the unprecedented obstruction of Mr. Bush's judicial nominees.
Mr. Reid and his leadership team would prefer that a supermajority of 60 Senators be required to approve the president's nominees for the federal bench. But this flies in the face of over 200 years of Senate history
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Ugh...I coulda done without this line....so pap and I HATE the term "move(ing) forward".
George Allen should be considered as a presidential candidate in 2008. He did a great job as governor of Virginia and makes a even greater senator.
The American Government was designed as a tripod balanced on three legs, the Legislative, Executive and Judiciary. Each was to be a check and balance excess of the other.
The judiciary was to judge based on laws passed by the legislature and agreed to by the executive. Only if the law was contrary to the clear word of our Constitution was the law to be unconstitutional.
Today we have a judiciary running wild, unchecked and certainly unbalanced, a judiciary that can read elimination of religion; freedom to deprive human beings of life, in and out of the womb; elimination of the rights of self-defense and freedom of association into the Constitution that clearly does not say these things. A living document, that is what they call it. By that term they mean it says what they say it says, for they are judges, appointed for life.
The time has come for balance in our government. The time has come for judges who can read, not divine meaning with a scale in their hand. We have no need for judges to make laws, they are to judge based on written law, not give law.
He spoke of the three branches as the law givers (Congress), the law enforcers (Executive), and the LAW PROTECTORS (Courts).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.