Stupid Is As Stupid Does...
The initial round of judicial nominees are finally done, and the GOP got their wish with the three most contentious jurists that were up for their votes. These three—Owens, Brown, and Pryor—had been waiting years for their votes, and when the fourteen senators met just a couple weeks ago to hammer out a "deal", these three were the top jurists on the list that we wanted. The problem with the deal is that all the rest—the other seven in contention—were thrown under the bus.
Nothing like being sold out by members of the president’s party.
And the utter stupidity of that deal was that the GOP was convinced that the Democrats were going to dig in, and refuse to give in on votes for any of these people. The compromise might have been worth it had more jurists been included in the deal (Myers and Saad are mentioned, but they’re not guaranteed a vote under the "rules" of this deal), or had the Constitutional Option stayed on the table the way the filibuster still is.
Marcie and I harped for weeks that it is unconstitutional and illegal to mount a filibuster on a nominee. The Constitution (Art. II, Sect. 2, Clause 2) is quite explicit in what entails the nomination and confirmation of someone to a federal position; whether they be a judge or an ambassador, the Constitution applies to all. The filibuster shouldn’t be on the table as a retaliation for a jurist; they live or die in committee. Stop them there if you don’t like them. Convince your colleagues of your argument. If they pass out of committee, then you have one last option which is stopping them with a simple majority vote.
And was the deal really worth it? Was it worth it for the GOP to table the Constitutional Option for the next 18 months? The Democrats are already gearing up for filibusters on Luttig, McConnell, and Roberts.
"If they don’t respect the Griswold decision, as far as I am concerned they should be filibustered," Durbin said.
From the horse’s ass to the American public, Sen. Durbin is on the record on filibustering if potential federal judges "don’t respect the Griswold decision". For those that are unaware of the USSC decision regarding Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the case surrounded a couple that took issue with a Connecticut law banning contraceptives. This was the infamous case that laid the groundwork for Roe v. Wade (1973) where a "right to privacy" was discovered within the Constitution from "penumbras, formed by emanations". (Never mind that there are no "penumbras" within the Constitution.) But so what if a judge disagrees with it. I’m an American citizen with a pretty decent legal mind, and I disagree with the assertion made by the court.
Point being is that we knew the Democrats wouldn’t be able to keep their word very long. And we knew it would start being raised again as time ticks away on the remainder of Chief Justice Rehnquists tenure on the Court. Luttig is a jurist that closely mirrors Associate Justices Scalia and Thomas, and he would be a welcome addition to the Court. Many are saying that either way it goes down—whether Luttig is directly nominated to the Chief Justice position, or he takes Scalia’s seat when Scalia is elevated to the Chief Justice’s chair—the nomination will go smoothly and without a hitch because it’s a conservative replacing a conservative. I beg to differ.
Does anyone really know why Justice Brown was opposed so vehemently? It’s because of where she was going. The DC Court of Appeals is the second most important and powerful court in the land. They handle more Constitutional question regarding legislation than any other court. And Griffith and Kavanaugh are being nominated to it, as well. With Brown, the votes—straight-up—along "party" lines is 6-4. If Griffith and Kavanaugh make it to the court, that’s an 8-4 split, with six solid originalists that will uphold the Constitution.
Myers is another one where a filibuster would be launched. He’s heading to the Democrat’s precious playground that is the Ninth "Circus" Court of Appeals. I’m sure that the reaction by the Democrats on the announcement of Myers going to the Ninth Court was similar to that of this cartoon by Cox and Forkum. (Yes, the cartoon is about Bolton, but just look at the Democrat's reactions. LOL.)
http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/000586.html
(Yes, I can imagine many a justice in the tall dark suit)
I knew you’d laugh. I laughed my butt off the day I saw it. But that seems to be their reaction to many judges coming up right now. But the deal, the threats, it was all smoke and mirrors. Why do I say that?
Priscilla Owens was confirmed with a vote of 55-43; Janice Rogers Brown was confirmed with a vote of 56-43; William Pryor was confirmed with a vote of 53-48 (the closest vote of these three). The other two that were confirmed right after Pryor—Griffin and McKeague—had 95-0 and 96-0 votes, respectively. They’re both going to the Sixth Court of Appeals. They tend to err on the side of the Constitution more often than not, but they are "moderates" to say the least. No reason why they wouldn’t receive the votes they did. The point is that the three justices that were threatened with filibuster passed pretty much by party lines, as was expected. (Yes, I did predict a close, Cheney-Needs-To-Tie-Break vote on Brown, and it probably would have come down to that had the Option been initiated.) The only party that was attacking these three, day in and day out, were the Democrats.
They weren’t going to be stopped. They couldn’t be stopped. They were going to be confirmed. The deal removed the Option off the table. The Democrats stated that they’ll only filibuster in "extraordinary circumstances", and the Option is out of the question if the Seditious Seven deem the circumstances to, indeed, be "extraordinary". "No, sorry, we agree with our colleagues across the aisle the Judge Luttig is ‘extraordinary’." Uh-huh. And tonight, at midnight, monkeys will "extraordinarily" fly out of my butt.
None of these judges are "extreme" by any shape or form when it comes to interpreting the law. Yes, they have personal beliefs that may contradict the law, but each one of the judges confirmed, thus far, have stated that they will abide by the law, and all precedents set by it. That’s what a judge is supposed to do. They don’t look at a case regarding our freedom of speech, and decide that the right guaranteed in the Constitution is too broad or extreme. They abide by what the law says. (Unless you were a member of the USSC when they decided McConnell v. FEC which curtailed our free speech rights.)
Scalia is on record on a number of subjects he disagrees with. He dislikes the slip-shod manner in which Roe v. Wade was decided, and mostly because the Court hasn’t abided the precedent they’ve set. The same goes for cases regarding homosexuality (Lawrence v. Texas, Bowers v. Harwick); free speech (NEA v. Finley, McConnell v. FEC); religious freedom (Lee v. Weisman, Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District); and the death penalty (Callins v. Collins, Atkins v. Virginia)
I disagree with a lot of decisions made by the high court. A lot of people are, Scalia among them, and mostly because we know what the Constitution says. Based on that alone we can make an educated decision. Yes, there are precedents that many people are unaware of, but that is why we need to stay educated on what our courts are doing. If we were to rewrite the Constitution based on all the decisions rendered by the high court, it would look much different from when it was first written. It’s been treated like it’s a "living, breathing document", or "ever-evolving", It’s not.
It’s a dead document. That means it can’t be changed or amended unless done so by the provisions within it. I’d prefer to defend a dead Constitution rather than one that’s "ever-evolving"; I’d never know which way to jump if I defended a "living" Constitution. The more "liberally-minded" judges on the bench believe in a living one. The ones like Brow, Owens, and Pryor—like myself and Justices Scalia and Thomas—prefer to interpret and honor a dead one. By doing so would mean the end of the control on the judiciary that the Left has. Their judges are "enlightened" and "intellectual"; originalist judges are "too extreme" and "rigid" in their decisions, and their inflexibility.
I’m sure that similar accusations arose from our Founding Fathers when they debated the Constitution in and of itself. Compromises were reached, and we have a perfect document for the foundation of our nation and our laws.
But compromising with people like the Democrats in the Senate will never give us a clear-cut win. I’ve heard the debates about the deal, I’ve heard both sides of the argument, and I know I’m right. This deal wasn’t averting anything, except for the Democrats to continue business as usual, and removing an impediment to them in the Constitutional Option.
The deal was not in getting judges through. The Seditious Seven Dwarves might have thought that, but the Democrats went into those negotiations with one thing on their minds: Remove the Constitutional Option from the table and the debate. They did a good job hood-winking the GOP. All they had to do was dangle a carrot, and they knew the GOP would bite. It’s often the foolishness of the weak that get us in trouble.
Publius II
Addendum: For anyone wanting to keep an extremely close eye on the judicial battle, go to http://www.confirmthem.com/. They keep EVERYONE updated. For analysis on these battles and the nominees themselves,
I recommend not only ConfirmThem.com, but also http://www.nationalreview.com/benchmemos/benchmemos.asp.
The initial round of judicial nominees are finally done, and the GOP got their wish with the three most contentious jurists that were up for their votes. These three—Owens, Brown, and Pryor—had been waiting years for their votes, and when the fourteen senators met just a couple weeks ago to hammer out a "deal", these three were the top jurists on the list that we wanted. The problem with the deal is that all the rest—the other seven in contention—were thrown under the bus.
Nothing like being sold out by members of the president’s party.
And the utter stupidity of that deal was that the GOP was convinced that the Democrats were going to dig in, and refuse to give in on votes for any of these people. The compromise might have been worth it had more jurists been included in the deal (Myers and Saad are mentioned, but they’re not guaranteed a vote under the "rules" of this deal), or had the Constitutional Option stayed on the table the way the filibuster still is.
Marcie and I harped for weeks that it is unconstitutional and illegal to mount a filibuster on a nominee. The Constitution (Art. II, Sect. 2, Clause 2) is quite explicit in what entails the nomination and confirmation of someone to a federal position; whether they be a judge or an ambassador, the Constitution applies to all. The filibuster shouldn’t be on the table as a retaliation for a jurist; they live or die in committee. Stop them there if you don’t like them. Convince your colleagues of your argument. If they pass out of committee, then you have one last option which is stopping them with a simple majority vote.
And was the deal really worth it? Was it worth it for the GOP to table the Constitutional Option for the next 18 months? The Democrats are already gearing up for filibusters on Luttig, McConnell, and Roberts.
"If they don’t respect the Griswold decision, as far as I am concerned they should be filibustered," Durbin said.
From the horse’s ass to the American public, Sen. Durbin is on the record on filibustering if potential federal judges "don’t respect the Griswold decision". For those that are unaware of the USSC decision regarding Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the case surrounded a couple that took issue with a Connecticut law banning contraceptives. This was the infamous case that laid the groundwork for Roe v. Wade (1973) where a "right to privacy" was discovered within the Constitution from "penumbras, formed by emanations". (Never mind that there are no "penumbras" within the Constitution.) But so what if a judge disagrees with it. I’m an American citizen with a pretty decent legal mind, and I disagree with the assertion made by the court.
Point being is that we knew the Democrats wouldn’t be able to keep their word very long. And we knew it would start being raised again as time ticks away on the remainder of Chief Justice Rehnquists tenure on the Court. Luttig is a jurist that closely mirrors Associate Justices Scalia and Thomas, and he would be a welcome addition to the Court. Many are saying that either way it goes down—whether Luttig is directly nominated to the Chief Justice position, or he takes Scalia’s seat when Scalia is elevated to the Chief Justice’s chair—the nomination will go smoothly and without a hitch because it’s a conservative replacing a conservative. I beg to differ.
Does anyone really know why Justice Brown was opposed so vehemently? It’s because of where she was going. The DC Court of Appeals is the second most important and powerful court in the land. They handle more Constitutional question regarding legislation than any other court. And Griffith and Kavanaugh are being nominated to it, as well. With Brown, the votes—straight-up—along "party" lines is 6-4. If Griffith and Kavanaugh make it to the court, that’s an 8-4 split, with six solid originalists that will uphold the Constitution.
Myers is another one where a filibuster would be launched. He’s heading to the Democrat’s precious playground that is the Ninth "Circus" Court of Appeals. I’m sure that the reaction by the Democrats on the announcement of Myers going to the Ninth Court was similar to that of this cartoon by Cox and Forkum. (Yes, the cartoon is about Bolton, but just look at the Democrat's reactions. LOL.)
http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/000586.html
(Yes, I can imagine many a justice in the tall dark suit)
I knew you’d laugh. I laughed my butt off the day I saw it. But that seems to be their reaction to many judges coming up right now. But the deal, the threats, it was all smoke and mirrors. Why do I say that?
Priscilla Owens was confirmed with a vote of 55-43; Janice Rogers Brown was confirmed with a vote of 56-43; William Pryor was confirmed with a vote of 53-48 (the closest vote of these three). The other two that were confirmed right after Pryor—Griffin and McKeague—had 95-0 and 96-0 votes, respectively. They’re both going to the Sixth Court of Appeals. They tend to err on the side of the Constitution more often than not, but they are "moderates" to say the least. No reason why they wouldn’t receive the votes they did. The point is that the three justices that were threatened with filibuster passed pretty much by party lines, as was expected. (Yes, I did predict a close, Cheney-Needs-To-Tie-Break vote on Brown, and it probably would have come down to that had the Option been initiated.) The only party that was attacking these three, day in and day out, were the Democrats.
They weren’t going to be stopped. They couldn’t be stopped. They were going to be confirmed. The deal removed the Option off the table. The Democrats stated that they’ll only filibuster in "extraordinary circumstances", and the Option is out of the question if the Seditious Seven deem the circumstances to, indeed, be "extraordinary". "No, sorry, we agree with our colleagues across the aisle the Judge Luttig is ‘extraordinary’." Uh-huh. And tonight, at midnight, monkeys will "extraordinarily" fly out of my butt.
None of these judges are "extreme" by any shape or form when it comes to interpreting the law. Yes, they have personal beliefs that may contradict the law, but each one of the judges confirmed, thus far, have stated that they will abide by the law, and all precedents set by it. That’s what a judge is supposed to do. They don’t look at a case regarding our freedom of speech, and decide that the right guaranteed in the Constitution is too broad or extreme. They abide by what the law says. (Unless you were a member of the USSC when they decided McConnell v. FEC which curtailed our free speech rights.)
Scalia is on record on a number of subjects he disagrees with. He dislikes the slip-shod manner in which Roe v. Wade was decided, and mostly because the Court hasn’t abided the precedent they’ve set. The same goes for cases regarding homosexuality (Lawrence v. Texas, Bowers v. Harwick); free speech (NEA v. Finley, McConnell v. FEC); religious freedom (Lee v. Weisman, Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District); and the death penalty (Callins v. Collins, Atkins v. Virginia)
I disagree with a lot of decisions made by the high court. A lot of people are, Scalia among them, and mostly because we know what the Constitution says. Based on that alone we can make an educated decision. Yes, there are precedents that many people are unaware of, but that is why we need to stay educated on what our courts are doing. If we were to rewrite the Constitution based on all the decisions rendered by the high court, it would look much different from when it was first written. It’s been treated like it’s a "living, breathing document", or "ever-evolving", It’s not.
It’s a dead document. That means it can’t be changed or amended unless done so by the provisions within it. I’d prefer to defend a dead Constitution rather than one that’s "ever-evolving"; I’d never know which way to jump if I defended a "living" Constitution. The more "liberally-minded" judges on the bench believe in a living one. The ones like Brow, Owens, and Pryor—like myself and Justices Scalia and Thomas—prefer to interpret and honor a dead one. By doing so would mean the end of the control on the judiciary that the Left has. Their judges are "enlightened" and "intellectual"; originalist judges are "too extreme" and "rigid" in their decisions, and their inflexibility.
I’m sure that similar accusations arose from our Founding Fathers when they debated the Constitution in and of itself. Compromises were reached, and we have a perfect document for the foundation of our nation and our laws.
But compromising with people like the Democrats in the Senate will never give us a clear-cut win. I’ve heard the debates about the deal, I’ve heard both sides of the argument, and I know I’m right. This deal wasn’t averting anything, except for the Democrats to continue business as usual, and removing an impediment to them in the Constitutional Option.
The deal was not in getting judges through. The Seditious Seven Dwarves might have thought that, but the Democrats went into those negotiations with one thing on their minds: Remove the Constitutional Option from the table and the debate. They did a good job hood-winking the GOP. All they had to do was dangle a carrot, and they knew the GOP would bite. It’s often the foolishness of the weak that get us in trouble.
Publius II
Addendum: For anyone wanting to keep an extremely close eye on the judicial battle, go to http://www.confirmthem.com/. They keep EVERYONE updated. For analysis on these battles and the nominees themselves,
I recommend not only ConfirmThem.com, but also http://www.nationalreview.com/benchmemos/benchmemos.asp.
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 12:00 PM
3 Comments:
Good blog. I don't always agree with what the supreme court judges rule or what they say. I used to think each one could set aside their politcal and personal believes and follow what the written in stone Constitution says. It is alive so long as the words live as intended by our fore fathers and it is dead meaning it can only be altered or change as provided therein. It is therefor written in stone. It's reported that a republican put a hold on a judicial nominee but I can't seem to find who and who. I expect to many holds on judicial nominees. This is another rule (Holds) along with the 60 vote rule that must be abolished. Until then the senate, the president and the people are denied the Constitution. We are held hostage by the seditious seven. Rawriter
If I may interject, again; it is not just the seven Republicans that did this. There were seven willing Democrats, as well. These seven need to be held accountable, too.
I can understand the outrage at the seven Republicans, as I am one, however seven Democrats did join in on that deal, and a few of them are up for reelection in 2006.
The mid-terms will give the country a mighty voice on this issue, in particular. "Publius II" brought up the polling data regarding the judicial issue and the Constitutional Option. Over 60% of this nation was behind Frist to "pull the trigger" on the Constitutional Option.
These fourteen rogues beat him to the punch. Personally, I'm still with the jury on deliberating whether or not Frist really knew what was going on. When that question is answered, I'll be more than ready to send him packing, or fight for him to keep his position.
The details are as important as the in-your-face facts.
Mistress Pundit
Raw,
Personally, I have yet to hear of any holds other than the one that Boxer initiated on Bolton.
And yes, the Constitution is technically, set in stone. There are provisions for change, and it is does not include a judge on the federal bench making up things as they go.
And as for the infamous deal, I hear wisdom from the previous person to comment. It is not just the seven who deserve the blame. It is all fourteen that should be held up to the light, and vetted thoroughly.
However, what is one to do when neither side of the aisle will hold the fourteen accountable? Further, what is Frist to do. I am one who has been on the fence regarding what happens to him. The Deal effectively threw him under the bus, as well, and his image as Majority Leader was severely hurt in this fiasco. But at this point, I am apt to agree with Thomas: He brought this on himself.
He hemmed. He hawed. He took the message out to the media, and drug the fight out, which allowed these fourteen the time they needed to further undermine the Constitution.
Marcie
Post a Comment
<< Home