Tuesday, April 26, 2005

Ending judicial filibusters

Man, the upcoming Senate showdown on judicial filibusters is going to be exciting. The issue, of course, is crystal clear.

Liberals depend on judicial legislation, not interpretation, to advance their left-wing agenda. Since this is unconstitutional, conservatives are very concerned about getting judges installed who will actually uphold the Constitution. The Democrats know that this would leave ultra-liberal causes in the hands of the people themselves, who so often reject them, so they've used the filibuster to prevent good judges from even being voted upon. Now Republicans want to alter the rules to ban filibusters on judicial nominations, seeing as the Constitution is clear about Congress' "advice and consent" role that is in no way meant to equal the role of the executive branch in the judicial nomination process. Democrats just aren't allowing Congress to do what it's obligated to do with these nominations. And altering the (Congress-made) rules hasn't been necessary in the past because this divisive tactic - using the filibuster to prevent judges with majority support from getting a vote - has never been consistently used before.

Commentary on the importance of this issue:

Phyllis Schlafly
Chuck Colson
Cal Thomas
Thomas Sowell

Creative Commons License