I have been adamant in putting forth the notion that filibustering judical nominees, or any nominee for that matter, goes well beyond the Senate's advice and consent role. Essentially, what this does is give the minority the power to usurp the will of the majority and whilst doing that, the will of the people. The dem/leftists seem to forget that they are the minority party and have continued to lose ground in each election. What they could not accomplish at the polls, they are attempting to do with the filibuster, namely dictate to the majority. Star Parker has a few things to point out in her commentary.
It seems pretty clear to me that the point of the process of advice and consent in the Senate, which defines its review of the president's nominees, is to ensure that we have qualified candidates. It should not be about having senators insert personal political opinions regarding a nominee's views on particular subject matter.As I have posted before, if the dem/leftists want to fill vacant judicial seats, then they need to get elected to being the majority party. The American people spoke at the polls and elected Republicans. The dem/leftists do not like that, so they continue to be obstructionist. All of the nominees the President has sent to the Senate are well qualified from the legal perspective. There is no reason, other then ideologogy for the dem/leftists to oppose them. Which is fine, until they try to use the filibuster to deny these nominees an up or down vote by the full Senate.
By definition, because it is the responsibility of the president to nominate judges, and because the people of the nation democratically elect the president, it is only reasonable to expect the judges that get nominated to reflect the worldview of our president.
The American people, last November, elected a Republican president and a Republican Senate. If we don't believe that the American people know what they are doing when they go to the polls, our way of life is in bad shape. We have to assume that a Republican-dominated federal government reflects a conservatively oriented electorate. It is only logical to expect that judicial nominees will reflect this orientation and we can only conclude that this is the result of a healthy democracy. Procedural games that undermine this process reflect a sick democracy.
The Janice Rogers Brown nomination is a good case in point.There are not many things that the dem/leftists fear more than a black conservative woman. In fact, the dem/leftists seems to fear any black conservative. It is to the point where Harry Reid sounds like a bigot and racist when ever the names Janice Rogers Brown and Clarence Thomas are mentioned. Of course they are not the dem/leftist "minorities", because they refused to stay of the dem/leftist plantation. It is time for an up or down vote by the full Senate on these nominees. - Sailor
There is no conceivable argument that can be made that she is not an eminently qualified candidate for a seat on a federal court. She is an associate justice on the California Supreme Court and was re-elected to this position by a compelling 76 percent of the vote. Her background before this position is stellar, including stints as a law-school professor, legal-affairs secretary to then-California Gov. Pete Wilson, an associate justice on a California district court of appeals, and a practicing attorney.
On a personal note, Brown is a black woman who is a role model for both blacks as well as whites. Her life is proof that achievement in America is the result of character and hard work. She grew up in rural Alabama, the daughter of sharecroppers. As a single mother, she worked her way through Cal State and UCLA law school.
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
The Senate should go nuclear