The Party of Tolerance...
The Constitutional Option will happen, much to the chagrin of the Democrats. But, according to my father (those who know understand) and the DNC talking points, they are the party of tolerance. They believe in every minority on Earth, including the blue-bellied, pygmy dragonfly. But they do not believe in minorities that can make a difference in more ways than one.
The Constitutional Option will stare the GOP in the face the first Monday the Senate returns to session. (That would be next Monday, people) It is something that must be done. No one likes to do things—in this day and age—where people might look down on it. But when push comes to shove, and that which is right, proper, and correct must be done, then our leaders have a job to do. And they had better not shirk it.
This wonderful party of tolerance has decided to take a stand against ten of the president’s judicial nominees. It is not out of some wrong committed by these people in their past, unless you latch onto the Left’s mantric seething anger over originalist jurists. The Left—those Democrats in the Senate willing to force this issue because they disregard their proper role—are adamantly oppose such judges reaching the federal bench because they will never see their agenda furthered by these people. At least we hope that will happen. But if one bases their assertions on USSC justices, let me just remind you of O’Connor, Souter, and Kennedy; all overwhelmingly approved to the bench, touted as conservative, and showing precisely the opposite in a majority of decisions.
Janice Rogers Brown is a "more than qualified" jurist by the liberal ABA. She won a reelection bid where 75% of voters put her back in office. Granted, for the Left, it is hard to admit that their liberal agency of the ABA would justify an originalist jurist so high, but they did. She is qualified to hold her appointed post on the federal bench. And...she is an inspiration to young black kids everywhere; a feat Clarence Thomas accomplished before when he was appointed to the federal bench. But the Left opts to savage this accomplished judge on every decision—practically—that she has made. Tsk, tsk, as my other half is fond of saying.
Priscilla Owens is another adept jurist headed for the federal bench, but the "women’s rights" special interest groups are against this woman. The citizens of Texas voted—overwhelmingly—by 84% to put her back in office. They obviously liked what she brought to the Texas judiciary, otherwise, why the support? The women’s special interest groups on the Left despise her stance regarding abortion, and that a parent should be involved in such a decision. I am sure there is a strong faith-tie to such a subject, but it has little to do with that, and more to with the fact the Constitution speaks nothing of aborition; a reason why Roe v. Wade should have been remanded back to the States instead of intruded upon by the federal government.
William Pryor is being attacked over being a Catholic. The last time I checked, Mr. Pryor is entitled to the same protections as any other citizen regarding their chosen faith. But the Democrats have spun his "faith" as part of his judicial decisions. His faith has nothing to do with his decisions. He interprets the law as it is, and the ABA reflects that in their decision to grant him the high rank that they have. Mr. Pryor, like the rest of President Bush’s nominees, has been subjected to illegal litmus tests, and had his answers during such grilling splattered on the front pages the next day; all thanks to the Democrats doing the grilling.
The party of Roosevelt, Truman, and JFK has lost it’s way. They are so full of hate and bile that they cannot see beyond it; it blocks their vision and their mentality. The judiciary needs qualified jurists. That means it needs these jurists, but the Democrats are afraid to put them on the bench.
And the truth behind it all is that they know one of the people will probably be appointed to the USSC when Rehnquist steps down. They do not want someone that looks at the Constitution the way the Framers did. If that were to happen, they would have more problems in the judiciary than they knew what to do with. With a new originalist on the high court, it could tip the balance back towards and originalist.
I am not holding my breath on the last statement. It will take more than one justice being replaced on the USSC to truly effect a change in the mindset of the high court. And I do not want it to be a "conservative court"; I want it to where it belongs. An originalist court that understands the boundaries of the law, and will not step over those enumerated boundaries. That is what Frist is attempting to do, and he deserves all the respect and help we can give him to accomplish that task.
The Bunny ;)
The Constitutional Option will happen, much to the chagrin of the Democrats. But, according to my father (those who know understand) and the DNC talking points, they are the party of tolerance. They believe in every minority on Earth, including the blue-bellied, pygmy dragonfly. But they do not believe in minorities that can make a difference in more ways than one.
The Constitutional Option will stare the GOP in the face the first Monday the Senate returns to session. (That would be next Monday, people) It is something that must be done. No one likes to do things—in this day and age—where people might look down on it. But when push comes to shove, and that which is right, proper, and correct must be done, then our leaders have a job to do. And they had better not shirk it.
This wonderful party of tolerance has decided to take a stand against ten of the president’s judicial nominees. It is not out of some wrong committed by these people in their past, unless you latch onto the Left’s mantric seething anger over originalist jurists. The Left—those Democrats in the Senate willing to force this issue because they disregard their proper role—are adamantly oppose such judges reaching the federal bench because they will never see their agenda furthered by these people. At least we hope that will happen. But if one bases their assertions on USSC justices, let me just remind you of O’Connor, Souter, and Kennedy; all overwhelmingly approved to the bench, touted as conservative, and showing precisely the opposite in a majority of decisions.
Janice Rogers Brown is a "more than qualified" jurist by the liberal ABA. She won a reelection bid where 75% of voters put her back in office. Granted, for the Left, it is hard to admit that their liberal agency of the ABA would justify an originalist jurist so high, but they did. She is qualified to hold her appointed post on the federal bench. And...she is an inspiration to young black kids everywhere; a feat Clarence Thomas accomplished before when he was appointed to the federal bench. But the Left opts to savage this accomplished judge on every decision—practically—that she has made. Tsk, tsk, as my other half is fond of saying.
Priscilla Owens is another adept jurist headed for the federal bench, but the "women’s rights" special interest groups are against this woman. The citizens of Texas voted—overwhelmingly—by 84% to put her back in office. They obviously liked what she brought to the Texas judiciary, otherwise, why the support? The women’s special interest groups on the Left despise her stance regarding abortion, and that a parent should be involved in such a decision. I am sure there is a strong faith-tie to such a subject, but it has little to do with that, and more to with the fact the Constitution speaks nothing of aborition; a reason why Roe v. Wade should have been remanded back to the States instead of intruded upon by the federal government.
William Pryor is being attacked over being a Catholic. The last time I checked, Mr. Pryor is entitled to the same protections as any other citizen regarding their chosen faith. But the Democrats have spun his "faith" as part of his judicial decisions. His faith has nothing to do with his decisions. He interprets the law as it is, and the ABA reflects that in their decision to grant him the high rank that they have. Mr. Pryor, like the rest of President Bush’s nominees, has been subjected to illegal litmus tests, and had his answers during such grilling splattered on the front pages the next day; all thanks to the Democrats doing the grilling.
The party of Roosevelt, Truman, and JFK has lost it’s way. They are so full of hate and bile that they cannot see beyond it; it blocks their vision and their mentality. The judiciary needs qualified jurists. That means it needs these jurists, but the Democrats are afraid to put them on the bench.
And the truth behind it all is that they know one of the people will probably be appointed to the USSC when Rehnquist steps down. They do not want someone that looks at the Constitution the way the Framers did. If that were to happen, they would have more problems in the judiciary than they knew what to do with. With a new originalist on the high court, it could tip the balance back towards and originalist.
I am not holding my breath on the last statement. It will take more than one justice being replaced on the USSC to truly effect a change in the mindset of the high court. And I do not want it to be a "conservative court"; I want it to where it belongs. An originalist court that understands the boundaries of the law, and will not step over those enumerated boundaries. That is what Frist is attempting to do, and he deserves all the respect and help we can give him to accomplish that task.
The Bunny ;)
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 8:13 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home