They Just Keep It Up
Nan Aron, president of the Alliance for Justice, was on Hugh Hewitt’s show this afternoon. She’s a wacky as Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, and Ralph Neas, and she made a couple of comments today that raised my eyebrows. The full transcript of the exchange is up on Duane’s site at RadioBlogger (the link is below), and I have taken a couple of excerpts from the exchange that I’m commenting on.
Before I go on, though, I have received a few E-mails telling me to get off this subject. Not because I don’t know what I’m talking about, mind you. I have quite a few people that refer to our analysis of the coming judiciary fight. No, they’re complaining that we have spent too much time on this already. (I’m not naming names, so don’t even bother asking.) What people MUST realize is this is it. This is the last stand. If we lose this fight (and I have a feeling to GOP will shoot themselves in the foot, again) we’re screwed as a nation. We will have lost the last, deciding battle in the cultural war raging across the nation. This is important, especially on the heels of such decisions regarding our free political speech, and our property rights. We can’t afford to let the high court continue to legislate from the bench. So, no, we're not letting up on this.
HH: Now, of course, Janice Rogers Brown was just appointed to a lifetime appointment on the federal bench...
NA: That's correct.
HH: So she could probably get through with your approval, because she's already met the test of the gang of 14, right?
NA: No, no, no. She has not. In fact, there were two parts to that deal. Part one concerned Janice Rogers Brown, William Pryor, and Priscilla Owen. And that we consider to be the backward looking part of the deal. Those three were horse traded, in order...by the Democrats, in order to get Republicans on the second part of the deal. But we would argue, and in fact, on our website have taken the position, that the records of those three now-Judges, were so hostile to women's rights, civil rights, environmental or worker protections, that those records themselves constituted extraordinary circumstances. And under the terms of the agreement, there is a provision allowing for the filibuster of nominees, who's records constitute extraordinary circumstances. That definition certainly fits the records of those three nominees, who were traded in order to get the deal signed.
She’s right, to a point. The three were the horse trade to get the Seditious Seven Republicans to agree to the deal, and take the Constitutional Option off the table. But she’s incorrect in her assumption that these three nominees, should they be nominated to the high court, could be filibustered. If one reads the deal, these three are off limits. Bush could nominate them to the Supreme Court, and there isn’t a damn thing the Democrats can do to them in terms of a filibuster. Another nominee? Sure. She’s right that there’s a provision in the terms of the deal that allow for such a move, again, under "extraordinary circumstances." The crux of the problem I have with the deal is such circumstances were never defined. (Way to go, McCain; duped again by the dopes.)
But their apparent hostility (I didn’t see any of that in my research of those three) towards "women’s rights" or "civil rights" don’t matter. You know why? Because Brown, Owens and Pryor are originalists. They confine themselves to the boundaries established by the Constitution. The 14th Amendment protects such things. As citizens, we are granted all the protections within the Constitution—regardless of race, color, creed, sex, etc. We are citizens, recognized by the government and the Constitution. So, their hostility doesn’t compute for me. Nan’s wrong.
HH: So you think those seven Democrats agree with your interpretation of the deal?
NA: Yea, I do.
HH: Have they confirmed that to you?
NA: I do. We've had some discussions with their staffs.
HH: And so you really think they agree with your interpretation?
NA: I do. I certainly do. It only makes sense.
HH: Which staff, which office?
NA: No. I'm not going to tell you which staff was...
Hugh asked the $64,000 question with who she was talking with. I’d kind of like to know who she has been consulting with out of the seven Democrats, or any of them, for that matter. The interpretation of the deal makes sense to her. In an earlier interview, she stated the deal, itself, makes sense. I really have to question the intelligence of this woman.
The deal by the Gang of 14 granted senators further extra-Constitutional powers. The powers of the Senate are clearly enumerated under Article I of the Constitution. Further, they have rules they have approved of to help them in their legislative endeavors. But this isn’t part of their powers. This is a usurption of power not only from the president, but from the Senate as a whole. These fourteen "geniuses" will get to decide whether a filibuster is justified. McCain and company were willingly hornswaggled by the party out of power. In their rush to a compromise, after making a big deal out of nothing regarding the Constitutional Option, they ceded a level of control over to the opposition; one that is clearly gearing up to stop any originalist jurist from making it to the Supreme Court.
As I stated on Monday, much, if not all of this, revolves around them protecting the decision handed down in Roe. This is going to be the primary focus of the unconstitutional litmus tests that will be perpetuated by the Left. Do they agree or disagree with the decision in Roe v. Wade? For me, despite not being a full-fledged lawyer yet, the answer is still the same.
As of right now, Roe v. Wade is the law of the land. It is considered precedent established by the court. In my opinion, it was a bad precedent, as has been established by the avalanche unfolding regarding partial-birth abortion right now—that act, in my opinion, is outright murder. So, were I a nominee, I would uphold Roe as it stands, unless the Court was to readdress the issue. Should they do so, a careful study of the initial argument presented in Roe will show that it never should have been ruled a "constitutionally protected right." That is not a personal preference. For me, I have already done my fair share of research into Roe, and constitutionally in my arguement against it, I’m sound.
But that’s what we’re coming down to. The nominees coming up will be opposed based on their personal beliefs (which don’t figure into the interpretation of the law) and their ideology (again, it doesn’t figure into the equation.) They will be attacked, they will be opposed, they will be filibustered. Granted, there are a few on the GOP side of that deal that have said they will bolt from the McCain "caucus" should they feel the filibuster is unwarranted. I believe Sen. Graham stated on the Sean Hannity show that if a filibuster was mounted on someone like J. Michael Luttig, he would move to Frist’s side. (I’m not sure if that’s the right nominee. I might be wrong on that, but it is a widely spoken of nominee he was referring to.)
That’s great, but the effort is a bit late. We needed that sort of tenacity prior to now. With our backs against the wall, and the high court hanging in the balance, it’s a little late for the GOP to come riding to the rescue. Point being is someone in the Senate better find their spine. This is going to be a really messy fight, and we need everyone of our senators on the same page. We need them frosty with their "A-Game." If they aren’t, then we’re screwed.
Publius II
Nan Aron, president of the Alliance for Justice, was on Hugh Hewitt’s show this afternoon. She’s a wacky as Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, and Ralph Neas, and she made a couple of comments today that raised my eyebrows. The full transcript of the exchange is up on Duane’s site at RadioBlogger (the link is below), and I have taken a couple of excerpts from the exchange that I’m commenting on.
Before I go on, though, I have received a few E-mails telling me to get off this subject. Not because I don’t know what I’m talking about, mind you. I have quite a few people that refer to our analysis of the coming judiciary fight. No, they’re complaining that we have spent too much time on this already. (I’m not naming names, so don’t even bother asking.) What people MUST realize is this is it. This is the last stand. If we lose this fight (and I have a feeling to GOP will shoot themselves in the foot, again) we’re screwed as a nation. We will have lost the last, deciding battle in the cultural war raging across the nation. This is important, especially on the heels of such decisions regarding our free political speech, and our property rights. We can’t afford to let the high court continue to legislate from the bench. So, no, we're not letting up on this.
HH: Now, of course, Janice Rogers Brown was just appointed to a lifetime appointment on the federal bench...
NA: That's correct.
HH: So she could probably get through with your approval, because she's already met the test of the gang of 14, right?
NA: No, no, no. She has not. In fact, there were two parts to that deal. Part one concerned Janice Rogers Brown, William Pryor, and Priscilla Owen. And that we consider to be the backward looking part of the deal. Those three were horse traded, in order...by the Democrats, in order to get Republicans on the second part of the deal. But we would argue, and in fact, on our website have taken the position, that the records of those three now-Judges, were so hostile to women's rights, civil rights, environmental or worker protections, that those records themselves constituted extraordinary circumstances. And under the terms of the agreement, there is a provision allowing for the filibuster of nominees, who's records constitute extraordinary circumstances. That definition certainly fits the records of those three nominees, who were traded in order to get the deal signed.
She’s right, to a point. The three were the horse trade to get the Seditious Seven Republicans to agree to the deal, and take the Constitutional Option off the table. But she’s incorrect in her assumption that these three nominees, should they be nominated to the high court, could be filibustered. If one reads the deal, these three are off limits. Bush could nominate them to the Supreme Court, and there isn’t a damn thing the Democrats can do to them in terms of a filibuster. Another nominee? Sure. She’s right that there’s a provision in the terms of the deal that allow for such a move, again, under "extraordinary circumstances." The crux of the problem I have with the deal is such circumstances were never defined. (Way to go, McCain; duped again by the dopes.)
But their apparent hostility (I didn’t see any of that in my research of those three) towards "women’s rights" or "civil rights" don’t matter. You know why? Because Brown, Owens and Pryor are originalists. They confine themselves to the boundaries established by the Constitution. The 14th Amendment protects such things. As citizens, we are granted all the protections within the Constitution—regardless of race, color, creed, sex, etc. We are citizens, recognized by the government and the Constitution. So, their hostility doesn’t compute for me. Nan’s wrong.
HH: So you think those seven Democrats agree with your interpretation of the deal?
NA: Yea, I do.
HH: Have they confirmed that to you?
NA: I do. We've had some discussions with their staffs.
HH: And so you really think they agree with your interpretation?
NA: I do. I certainly do. It only makes sense.
HH: Which staff, which office?
NA: No. I'm not going to tell you which staff was...
Hugh asked the $64,000 question with who she was talking with. I’d kind of like to know who she has been consulting with out of the seven Democrats, or any of them, for that matter. The interpretation of the deal makes sense to her. In an earlier interview, she stated the deal, itself, makes sense. I really have to question the intelligence of this woman.
The deal by the Gang of 14 granted senators further extra-Constitutional powers. The powers of the Senate are clearly enumerated under Article I of the Constitution. Further, they have rules they have approved of to help them in their legislative endeavors. But this isn’t part of their powers. This is a usurption of power not only from the president, but from the Senate as a whole. These fourteen "geniuses" will get to decide whether a filibuster is justified. McCain and company were willingly hornswaggled by the party out of power. In their rush to a compromise, after making a big deal out of nothing regarding the Constitutional Option, they ceded a level of control over to the opposition; one that is clearly gearing up to stop any originalist jurist from making it to the Supreme Court.
As I stated on Monday, much, if not all of this, revolves around them protecting the decision handed down in Roe. This is going to be the primary focus of the unconstitutional litmus tests that will be perpetuated by the Left. Do they agree or disagree with the decision in Roe v. Wade? For me, despite not being a full-fledged lawyer yet, the answer is still the same.
As of right now, Roe v. Wade is the law of the land. It is considered precedent established by the court. In my opinion, it was a bad precedent, as has been established by the avalanche unfolding regarding partial-birth abortion right now—that act, in my opinion, is outright murder. So, were I a nominee, I would uphold Roe as it stands, unless the Court was to readdress the issue. Should they do so, a careful study of the initial argument presented in Roe will show that it never should have been ruled a "constitutionally protected right." That is not a personal preference. For me, I have already done my fair share of research into Roe, and constitutionally in my arguement against it, I’m sound.
But that’s what we’re coming down to. The nominees coming up will be opposed based on their personal beliefs (which don’t figure into the interpretation of the law) and their ideology (again, it doesn’t figure into the equation.) They will be attacked, they will be opposed, they will be filibustered. Granted, there are a few on the GOP side of that deal that have said they will bolt from the McCain "caucus" should they feel the filibuster is unwarranted. I believe Sen. Graham stated on the Sean Hannity show that if a filibuster was mounted on someone like J. Michael Luttig, he would move to Frist’s side. (I’m not sure if that’s the right nominee. I might be wrong on that, but it is a widely spoken of nominee he was referring to.)
That’s great, but the effort is a bit late. We needed that sort of tenacity prior to now. With our backs against the wall, and the high court hanging in the balance, it’s a little late for the GOP to come riding to the rescue. Point being is someone in the Senate better find their spine. This is going to be a really messy fight, and we need everyone of our senators on the same page. We need them frosty with their "A-Game." If they aren’t, then we’re screwed.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 12:05 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home