Dear Colleague:
It's time to get good judges on the federal bench, and abolishing a Senate
procedural rule that hasn't even been in effect for much of Senate history
is the only way to do it.
Steven W. Mosher
President
PRI Weekly Briefing
29 April 2005
Vol. 7 / No. 16
Time to Win in the Judiciary
By Joseph A. D'Agostino
Conservatives and pro-lifers have gained ground in the White House, the
U.S. House, the U.S. Senate, and in many state legislatures and governors'
mansions. Yet America's tyrannical judiciary continues on its demolition
of the nation, her laws, her morals, and her traditions. It's time to
stop the "just wait until we" mentality, and the process-over-substance
mentality, and win in the judiciary, which is where so much of the real
ruling of this country takes place.
The biggest obstacle of the moment: The Senate filibuster as applied to
the President's judicial nominations. The filibuster allows a minority of
41 out of 100 senators to block a vote on almost any substantive question
that comes before the Senate. The filibuster rule is not in the
Constitution, nor has it always been part of Senate procedure. It is
something that has come and gone over 200 years of Senate history. The
simple answer to the problem: Eliminate the filibuster rule for judicial
nominations, or for all presidential appointments. This can be
accomplished through a simple majority vote, a method that has been used
to change similar Senate rules numerous times in the past.
This seemingly arcane debate about Senate procedure has become white-hot.
Why should pro-life, pro-family citizens in Middle America care? The
simple reality: The only practical way of restoring democratic rule on the
issue of abortion, and thus the possibility of legal protection for unborn
children, is by getting good judges on the federal bench, particularly the
U.S. Supreme Court. It's also the only practical way to prevent "rights"
to euthanasia and to same-sex "marriage" from being magically discovered
in the Constitution and imposed on America. Other methods-constitutional
amendments, impeachment of bad judges, comprehensive court jurisdiction
stripping, presidential non-enforcement of unconstitutional judicial
rulings-will not work or will not happen in the foreseeable future (for
more on why, see the Weekly Briefing on "Stopping
Same-Sex Marriage" from
Feb. 11, 2005).
The increasing use of "international law" to justify activist decisions by
the U.S. Supreme Court should be enough to make all law-abiding Americans
fear. The United Nations, the European Union, and others have been trying
to insert abortion rights, privileges for homosexuals, and other
innovations into international law. If activist judges succeed in
establishing the principle that American courts should follow
international law, we will have no defense against what unelected
international bureaucrats wish to impose. In recent landmark decisions
legalizing sodomy and outlawing the death penalty for minors, the U.S.
Supreme Court has cited international law and the practices of other
nations as justifications for the new rights they discovered.
The only way to get those good judges, and good Supreme Court justices
when the time comes, into those black robes is to abolish the filibuster
for judicial nominees. Filibusters of legislation would be unaffected by
Senate Republicans' proposals.
And if people of faith don't stand up now, they will be excluded from the
federal bench forever. Leftists have referred to these nominees'
religious beliefs about abortion and "gay rights" as unacceptable. Sen.
Chuck Schumer (D.-N.Y.) complained about Catholic nominee William Pryor's
"deeply held beliefs" on abortion in justifying his opposition to Pryor,
even though as attorney general of Alabama, Pryor had an impeccable record
of enforcing legal precedent such as Roe v. Wade on abortion cases as well
as on everything else.
Democratic senators have filibustered ten of President Bush's most
judicial of his judicial nominees, that is, those who prefer to interpret
the law rather than make it. That's part of having a judicial
temperament. Bush and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R.-Tenn.) ask
that the nominees get an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. They will
be confirmed by majority vote if they do. And that will pave the way for
up-or-down majority votes when Supreme Court vacancies arise.
Some whine that eliminating the filibuster for nominees will prevent
pro-life senators from filibustering the left-wing nominees of a future
pro-death President. But pro-lifers have never successfully filibustered
any such judicial nominees in the past. In fact, no judicial nominee with
majority support in the Senate has ever before been defeated via
filibuster. Leftist Democrats have set a new precedent. We shouldn't
expect social conservatives to follow it.
Frist made a reasonable offer to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid
(D.-Nev.) on April 28. It would apply only to higher-level judicial
nominees, not to other presidential appointments or to legislation.
"Circuit and Supreme Court nominations placed on the Executive Calendar
[for Senate action] and available for debate should receive an up or down
vote," he wrote in a letter. "Accordingly, I propose establishing a
procedure by which every Supreme Court and circuit court nomination can be
debated for up to 100 hours on the floor of the United States Senate.
Such a structure will allow for robust and extended discussion of whether
an individual should be confirmed, and will give the nominee-no matter who
is President and who is in the majority-an up or down vote when debate
concludes." Reid & co. rejected the offer. When the Senate returns from
it latest recess May 9, Frist will likely have the votes and the impetus
to end judicial filibusters permanently.
The filibuster fight has stirred up some fiery rhetoric. Freshman Sen.
Ken Salazar (D.-Colo.), who said during his campaign that judicial
nominees should get up-or-down votes only to flip-flip immediately upon
entering the Senate, called Focus on the Family "the anti-Christ" for
condemning the judicial filibusters (and for other good things that Focus
does). Reid refers to those who believe that judges shouldn't make law as
"the far right." California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown,
whom Bush has nominated to a federal appeals court, told a group of
Catholic lawyers after the Bridgeport, Conn. diocese's Red Mass, "These
are perilous times for people of faith, not in the sense that we are going
to lose our lives, but in the sense that it will cost you something if you
are a person of faith who stands up for what you believe in and say those
things out loud."
In a recent poll, 81% of Americans agreed with the statement, "Even if
they disagree with a judge, Senate Democrats should at least allow the
President's nominations to be voted on." It's time to make this happen.
If you would like to express your opinion on ending the filibusters of the
President's judicial nominees to your state's two senators, call the U.S.
Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121, or obtain direct numbers at
www.senate.gov.
Joseph A. D'Agostino is Vice President for Communications at PRI.
_________
PRI
P.O. Box 1559
Front Royal, VA 22630
USA
Phone: (540) 622-5240 Fax: (540) 622-2728
Email: jad@pop.org
Media Contact: Joseph A. D'Agostino
(540) 622-5240, ext. 204
_________
© 2005 Population Research Institute. Permission to reprint granted.
Redistribute widely. Credit required.
_________
If you would like to make a tax-deductible donation to PRI, please go to
https://pop.org/donate.cfm. All
donations (of any size) are welcomed and
appreciated.
_________
To subscribe to the Weekly Briefing, send an email to:
JOIN-PRI@Pluto.Sparklist.com
or email pri@pop.org and say "Add me to your
Weekly Briefing."
__________
The Population Research Institute is dedicated to ending human rights
abuses committed in the name of "family planning," and to ending
counter-productive social and economic paradigms premised on the myth of
"overpopulation."