Posted on 04/18/2003 4:27:13 PM PDT by Remedy
Pro-homosexual, pro-abortion Democrats are rallying their troops in an attempt to block the nomination of Arkansas lawyer Leon Holmes to be become a federal judge.
Groups like NARAL Pro-Choice America are publishing "fact sheets" that allegedly expose Holmes’ "hostility to reproductive rights" and his views on the law and "women’s equality." NARAL Pro-Choice America, for example, attacks Holmes because he was formerly president of Arkansas Right to Life from 1986-1987. This abortionist lobby also criticizes Holmes because he believes the Constitution should reflect the principles of natural law.
Holmes has been given a "well-qualified" rating by the American Bar Association, has been endorsed by his two U.S. Senators, and by the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. The paper has noted: "What distinguishes Mr. Holmes is a rare blend of qualities he brings to the law—intellect, scholarship, conviction, and detachment. A reverence not just for the law but for ideas, for the life of the mind. All of that would shine through the clutter of arguments that awaits any judge….He would not only bring distinction to the bench but promise. … In choosing Leon Holmes, [the President] could bequeath a promise of greatness." (Editorial in Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, December 1, 2002.)
Holmes is being attacked, in part, because he is a Catholic and a strong pro-lifer. He finished law school at Duke University at the top of his class and has taught at Thomas Aquinas College in California. He also taught law at the University of Arkansas and clerked for Justice Holt on the Arkansas Supreme Court.
Holmes is also being attacked for his orthodox Catholic views on marriage and family. He is opposed to gay marriage because it violates natural law and Catholic doctrine.
In short, he is an excellent judicial candidate and would serve our nation well on the federal bench in Arkansas. No candidate should be disqualified from office for having religious faith. In fact, the Constitution forbids any religious test for public office.
Senator Tom Daschle (D-SD) has been a leading player in this attempt to block and smear President Bush’s judicial nominees. He has also been a vocal opponent of our nation’s efforts to rid the world of Saddam Hussein.
A poll taken by the GOP recently indicates that Daschle’s future as a Senator may be in jeopardy. He is up for re-election in 2004 and faces a formidable challenger, John Thune. The poll indicates South Dakotans favor Thune by a 63% margin compared to 56% favorable rating for Daschle.
More on this poll is available here: GOP poll finds Daschle in trouble -- The Washington Times. The Weekly Standard has also recently reported that Daschle’s Catholic Bishop has ordered him to stop calling himself a Catholic because of his pro-abortion positions: Tom Daschle's Duty to Be Morally Coherent.
TAKE ACTION: Urge your Senators to vote for the confirmation of Leon Holmes to the federal bench in Arkansas. Use CapWiz to contact them: http://www.traditionalvalues.org/capwiz.php.
For more information on how Democrats are obstructing justice in blocking President Bush’s nominees, read John Nowaki’s Q&A in Insight magazine:
Symposium--Q: Are the Democrats treating President George W. Bush's judicial nominees unfairly?
NOTE: Both the House and Senate are on Easter recess until April 28th. Your Senators and Representatives will be in their home districts. Please contact them at their offices to discuss Bush’s judicial nominees as well as the H.R. 1298, the AIDS funding bill. (Details on the AIDS bill are available here.)
US Senate: Art & History Home > Origins & Development > ... I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
US Senate: Art & History Home > Origins & Development > Powers & ...
Using the filibuster to delay debate or block legislation has a long history. In the United States, the term filibuster -- from a Dutch word meaning "pirate" -- became popular in the 1850s when it was applied to efforts to hold the Senate floor in order to prevent action on a bill.
In the early years of Congress, representatives as well as senators could use the filibuster technique. As the House grew in numbers, however, it was necessary to revise House rules to limit debate. In the smaller Senate, unlimited debate continued since senators believed any member should have the right to speak as long as necessary.
In 1841, when the Democratic minority hoped to block a bank bill promoted by Henry Clay, Clay threatened to change Senate rules to allow the majority to close debate. Thomas Hart Benton angrily rebuked his colleague, accusing Clay of trying to stifle the Senate's right to unlimited debate. Unlimited debate remained in place in the Senate until 1917. At that time, at the suggestion of President Woodrow Wilson, the Senate adopted a rule (Rule 22) that allowed the Senate to end a debate with a two-thirds majority vote -- a tactic known as "cloture."
The new Senate rule was put to the test in 1919, when the Senate invoked cloture to end a filibuster against the Treaty of Versailles. Despite the new cloture rule, however, filibusters continued to be an effective means to block legislation, due in part to the fact that a two-thirds majority vote is difficult to obtain. Over the next several decades, the Senate tried numerous times to evoke cloture, but failed to gain the necessary two-thirds vote. Filibusters were particularly useful to southern senators blocking civil rights legislation in the 1950s and 1960s. In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds (67) to three-fifths (60) of the 100-member Senate.
Senate Is to Advise And Consent, Not Obstruct and Delay The Framers Envisioned A Narrow Role for The Senate in The Confirmation Process.
The President is going to have to fight tooth and nail and take it directly to the people and expose these liberal-left-wing-socialista-hypocrites from his bully pulpit and spend his political capital.
He is a friend of mine, a fine scholar, and an utterly judicious and moderate man. He is also totally pro-life.
Here is a little story about him. When I became Chair of the bitterly divided Ventura Co. GOP in 1991 I asked Leon to be parlimentarian. The first decision he gave me was on a procedural matter, and it happened to favor the pro-abortion crowd. But Leon was following the By-Laws, as he ought. I ruled according to his advice.
He would make a first rate judge, and President Bush is to be commended for nominating him.
The attacks on him at NPR and by Senators Feinstein, Schumer, and Durbin are dishonest or ignorant.
Please, everyone, support this man.
Blessed Holy season to all,
Richard F.
He isn't, and your hope is misplaced.
Cheers,
Richard F.
The leftist Alliance for Justice expressed its "grave concerns" about Dr. Holmes' "troubling record," branding all mainstream pro-life groups "extremist organizations." ...
These leftists find most threatening views coming mainly from Dr. Holmes' articles and speeches addressing issues in the context of Catholic doctrine. No Democrats attended his March 27 Judiciary Committee hearing to ask any questions, but went nuts at the April 10 committee meeting discussing the nomination. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., singled out a speech by Dr. Holmes last October to the Society of Catholic Social Scientists, and a 1997 article he co-wrote with his wife in Arkansas Catholic magazine.
The Alliance warns that these views "cast into doubt his ability to provide equal justice to women and gays and lesbians who would appear before him."
A little google searching will probably turn up more.
Cheers,
Richard F.
That's why, when our people are smeared, we must write and speak out.
Cheers, and Happy Easter!
Richard F.
Here is the letter I wrote to Sen. Feinstein, fyi
*****
Dear Senator Feinstein,
I heard with some distress your reaction on NPR to the writings of Dr. Holmes on the relation of man and wife in Christian Marriage. Surely you know that the position he and his wife took in their article is that of the Catholic Church and of St. Paul in two of his Epistles. There is nothing odd or extreme in these views at all, and nothing that would disqualify a nominee outstanding in all other respect for the federal bench. I cannot believe that a United States Senator would think otherwise. Accordingly, I will presume that your intemperate remark was a momentary slip.
As it happens, I know Dr. Holmes personally and professionally, and I can assure you he has a perfect character for the office. He is thoughtful, fair, and slow to reach judgment. The breadth of his learning is unusual for a lawyer. He can lecture on Plato or Martin Luther King Jr., on Scripture or Lincoln. This liberal learning will serve him well in judging, especially in the writing of opinions. Perhaps your staff can find for you his doctoral dissertation, "Political Philosophy and the Politics of Black America." Its treatment of Booker T. Washington, W.E.B. Du Bois, and Martin Luther King Jr. is unsurpassed, in my opinion. You would enjoy reading it.
I hope you will reconsider your views of Dr. Holmes, and vote for his confirmation when the matter comes up.
************
Again, since I probably won't be writing you again before Sunday, Blessed Easter to you!
Cheers,
Richard F.
Wednesday, February 26, 2003 Judicial Nominations -- Miguel Estrada
I call on my colleagues across the aisle, and I urge them not to make this historic step, not to head down this road of filibuster. It is something we have not done before, we should not do now, and by all means we should not do this to a nominee who has not the slightest bit of a challenge to his integrity, not the slightest challenge to his legal ability, not any objection by the American Bar Association. In fact, they rated him the highest possible rating they can give and unanimously gave him that rating. It is really a sad day.
If Senator Hatch was frustrated, so are a lot of us. What has been going on here is not right. It is not right. We need to stop it. The Constitution of the United States provides that confirmations are advice and consent of the Senate, article II, section 2, by a majority vote. That is what it has always been. Now we are trying to convert that to a supermajority of 60 votes. It is something we have not done before.
It is amazing we are carrying on and suggest otherwise. Sure, the Senate is not a rubberstamp. Sure, it has a right to ask questions and demand information that is legitimate. But they are not required and should not ask for information that is not legitimate.
How did we get into this circumstance? How did we get to this point where the ground rules have changed, that we are into an obstructionist tactic, an unfair procedure? What happened? After the last election when President Bush was elected, the New York Times reported that the Democrat majority, the Democratic Senators at that time early in President Bush's administration had a retreat at some location unknown to me, and they heard at that time from three liberal law professors, Lawrence Tribe, Cass Sunstein, and Marcia Green burger. These liberal professors at this private retreat told the Democrats at that time, they should change the ground rules for nominations. They should ratchet up the pressure and they should alter the historic rules of courtesy, the historic presumptions in the Senate, and they should change how nominees are treated. They said: You have the power to do it. Do it, Democrats. Stand up and block these nominees. Do not accept the nominees from President Bush, like this Republican Senate accepted President Clinton's nominees. Fight every step of the way. That is apparently what has happened.
Shortly after that, when the majority in the Senate changed, I served on the Administrative Oversight and the Courts subcommittee. Senator Schumer chaired that subcommittee. He held hearings. He held hearings to argue the point that the burden of proof for a confirmation of a judge should change and it ought to be on the judge to prove he is qualified. That has never been done before in the history of this country. We had Lloyd Cutler, former Counsel to the White House of Democrat Presidents. We had others testify. They testified that it would be wrong to shift the burden to the nominee, it was not the right thing to do. Then he had hearings to say we ought to just consider your politics, your ideology, as he said, and we can consider somebody's politics, and we can reject them if we do not agree politically.
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.