Judicial Activism, Filibusters, and Lawyers

Judicial Activism, Filibusters and Lawyers

This is a page about judicial vacancies, notoriously poor legal decisions, and obstructionism in the Senate. Many of the people in the Senate who are arguing about judicial nominations are lawyers themselves.

There are numerous openings for federal judges around the country, and President Bush has appointed people to fill the vacancies. But the liberal Democrats in the Senate are stonewalling the confirmation process and systematically "borking" every nominee.

Several recent judicial nominees, including Charles Pickering, Michael McConnell, Priscilla Owen and Miguel Estrada have either been rejected or had their nominations substantially delayed by the Judiciary Committee or the full Senate due, in large part, to their conservative viewpoints.*

You won't hear this on the nightly TV news, so allow me to connect the dots: The central issue at stake in the confirmation of judges is abortion. Democrat Senators are determined to keep anyone from advancing as a federal judge if he or she has religious convictions which conflict with aborting unborn children. Abortion is apparently much more important to Democrats than almost anything else.

The second most crucial element in this controversy is the ability of liberal judges to create laws in the courtroom, rather than merely interpreting and applying them. The Democrats are determined to preserve this illegitimate function, because it's the only way they can get their leftist agenda implemented. The ballot box just doesn't work for liberals, because most Americans disagree with their ideas.

Note: The Supreme Court section has moved to its own page.

Recent rulings about the Ten Commandments have brought public scrutiny to the role of federal judges.

There is also a page nearby about the Property Seizures and the Supreme Court's recent eminent domain ruling.

There is a separate page about lawyers in general and frivolous lawsuits in particular.

This is an excellent commentary on judicial activism, criminal justice, and media sensationalism:
Law or soap opera? The Scott Peterson case demonstrates that legal processes can be excessive, not only in terms of time, but also in terms of the kinds of non-legal considerations and indulgences that are allowed into the administration of justice. Courts do not have unlimited resources or unlimited time. How many other cases must be put on hold while emotions are vented?

Editor's Note: Scott Peterson got a much better deal than Terri Schiavo, who was intentionally starved to death in Florida, at the insistence of her estranged husband, who at the same time was also someone else's common law "husband". You can bet that if Terri Schiavo had been a Guantanamo detainee, or a beached whale, there would have been no shortage of lawyers coming to her defense.

Excellent!
Confiscating property: The Court's decision helps explain the vicious attacks on any judicial nominees who might use framer-intent to interpret the U.S. Constitution. America's socialists want more control over our lives, property and our pocketbooks. They cannot always get their way in the legislature, and the courts represent their only chance.

A Legal Grand Slam! The advocates for same-sex marriage simply did not understand that courts generally do respect their role and the separation of powers. Simply put, courts cannot legislate.

Judges as social engineers: There is a growing tide of resentment against judges who clearly overstep their bounds in attempts to do that which they were never legally empowered to do, that is, act as social engineers instead of interpreters of law. These "activist" judges think nothing of stripping one group of citizens of their civil liberties, in order to grant special rights to another group — just because it seems like the popular thing to do.

Gay Marriage Returns. California's Supreme Court is not the law of the land, but its 4-3 ruling, titled "In re Marriage Cases" for six consolidated appeals, explicitly told both the state's voters and its elected legislature to get lost. Back in 2000, California voters by 61% approved a proposition asserting that the state could only recognize a "marriage" between man and woman. Now comes the court.

Too "Complex"? Part III. There was a time when courts would have stopped politicians from interfering with people's property rights by banning chain stores. … However, once the notion of "a living Constitution" became fashionable, the Constitution's protection of property rights has been "interpreted" virtually out of existence by judges.

Picking Judges: President Dwight Eisenhower was no liberal activist, but his appointment of Earl Warren as chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court dramatically shifted the nation leftward for decades on everything from criminal justice to separation of church and state to legislative reapportionment. Similarly, President Ronald Reagan was far more successful in reshaping the courts than in reducing the size of government. So it's important to know how each of the current candidates will go about picking judges when one of them becomes president.

Wedded to Activism. McCain, judging from his record and his recent speech against judicial activism, will try to appoint judges who will refrain from engaging in such meddling. About Obama we know no such thing, and have reason to suspect otherwise.

Judicial Activism and the Threat to the Constitution. Where judges usurp democratic legislative authority by imposing on the people their moral and political preferences under the guise of vindicating constitutional guarantees, they should be severely criticized and resolutely opposed. In this publication, distinguished constitutional scholar and Princeton professor Robert P. George explains the meaning of judicial activism — how judges exceed their constitutional powers when they seek to write laws rather than interpret them, and examines the history of judicial activism in United States courts.

The Judiciary: Tyranny's Active Agent. Without exaggeration, it can be said that most of the activist, anti-traditional measures of government have been judicially imposed. Those have been predominantly aimed at outlawing Judeo-Christian morality, notably Roe v. Wade and measures to banish spiritual religion from education and politics, while encouraging an accelerating descent into the cesspool of sensual gratification. Such measures were judicially imposed precisely because there never has been sufficient public support for them to gain passage in Congress. Federal judges have simply legislated what, in their personal opinions, the law ought to be.

Schumachers ordered to pay $97,000 in protesters' legal fees. A federal judge has ordered one of Portland's last furriers to pay nearly $97,000 in legal fees to the animal-rights protesters he has accused of destroying his family business.

Washington Court to Decide if State's Voters Understood 2001 Tax-Cut Vote. "If Judge Roberts' decision is allowed to stand," said Jonathan Bechtle, director of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation's Citizenship and Governance Center, "it will put a dangerous tool into the hands of those who wish to undermine the peoples' right of initiative, since any court or the legislature will be able to nullify an initiative simply by making a technical change to whatever law it amends."

Harry Reid: Promise Breaker. Last month, Reid finally agreed to do something about the Senate's abysmal progress in moving President Bush's US circuit court judge nominations to an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. Given the current Democrat-dominated Senate's snail's pace on circuit court confirmations (only eight circuit court nominees have been confirmed so far in this Congress), Reid promised McConnell that at least three nominations would be brought to a vote before the Memorial Day recess began. Reid broke that promise.

Political rhetoric over federal judges heats up. The calm couldn't last. Almost three years after the Senate confirmed two Supreme Court justices and rescued the judicial filibuster as part of an innovative bipartisan agreement, tensions are again rising over judicial nominations.

Faith of some is more equal than faith of others. [The] politicization [of the judicial nomination process] has reached such extremes that Republicans threatened to "shut down the Senate" in protest against it on Thursday. Their protest is justified. The experience of the essay's author is a perfect case study of how liberal senators have mischaracterized the views and records of so many of the nominees they opposed.

Frivolous politics: Part II. Differences in judicial nominees may seem like a small difference between the two parties. But federal judges serve for life — and some are a major disservice for life. Crazy decisions are still being made by federal judges appointed by Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter and even Lyndon Johnson. Allowing these kinds of judges to create new "rights" for captured terrorists out of thin air would be an invitation to disaster. Yet more such judges will be appointed by Democrats.

Bush Renominates Judicial Picks. President Bush renominated six previously blocked candidates for federal appeals court yesterday [11/15/2006], triggering the first real battle with ascendant Democrats since the midterm elections and signaling what could be the start of a fierce two-year struggle over the shape of the federal judiciary.

Democrats warned not to block judges. The Senate's next Republican leader issued a veiled threat to block action on legislation if Democrats refuse to allow confirmation votes on President Bush's troubled judicial nominations.

The 9th strikes out on death penalty. There should be two U.S. Supreme Courts, one to reverse the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the other to hear all other cases. Last term, more of the Supreme Court's caseload — 18 of 82 cases (22 percent) — came from the liberal Ninth Circuit, based in San Francisco, than from any other circuit, and the Ninth was reversed in 15 of the 18.

A judge drags his feet to avoid enforcing the death penalty.
Federal judge in Ohio stripped of five death penalty cases. A chief federal judge took away five death penalty cases from a colleague criticized by some prosecutors for taking as many as eight years to issue appeals rulings. … U.S. District Judge Walter Rice … is based in Dayton and was appointed by President Carter in 1980.

Judicial temperament? A poster of Che Guevara hangs on the wall of a judge who found Ohio's death penalty law constitutionally lacking. But his idol Che was not very respectful of the niceties of justice, and loved to watch firing squads at work.

Senate Abandons Judicial Nominees. There is a lot of blame to go around with respect to the Senate's obstruction of President Bush's judicial nominees. Democrats, who are philosophically opposed to the candidates, are playing games with the judicial confirmation process in order to appease the liberal wing of their party. They even took the extraordinary step of launching judicial filibusters to prevent up-or-down votes — a tactic that is not only unprecedented, but also flagrantly unconstitutional.

Men in Black is a must-read. Mark R. Levin showcases the justices' policymaking adventures with a litany of decisions wholly divorced from the Constitution. For example, the Court has ruled that cyberspace child pornography is protected free speech, but certain broadcast advertisements run prior to an election are not. Nazis marching in a predominantly Jewish neighborhood is sanctioned by the First Amendment, but not demonstrations in front of abortion clinics. The Court has decided that non-citizens have a right to compete for civil servant jobs, be members of the bar, and receive state benefits regardless of residency requirements. And illegal immigrants have a constitutional right to public education.

The legal system is now our enemy. Though there are many fine people in the legal profession, and though law is necessary to protect society from descending into chaos, I now fear the legal profession more than I do Islamic terror.

Prosecutor Appeals After Judge Drops Rape Charges Against Liberian Over Lack of Interpreter. The prosecutor in the case of a Liberian native charged with repeatedly raping and molesting a 7-year-old girl said Monday that he is filing an appeal of a controversial judge's ruling that dismissed all charges because an interpreter who spoke the suspect's rare West African dialect could not be found.

It Depends On The Meaning Of "Rape". Tory Bowen, a 24-year-old Lincoln, Nebraska, woman, has alleged that Pamir Safi, a 33-year-old Army reservist, raped her. … In a bizarre case of prior restraint, Lancaster County District Judge Jeffre Cheuvront has banned certain words and phrases from the trial on the grounds that they could be prejudicial to the defendant. Those terms include "rape," "assailant," "victim," "sexual assault," and "sexual assault kit." The judge did not indicate what words are supposed to be left for the prosecutor to put on his case.

Update:
Judge in sex assault case sued by alleged victim. In the latest legal twist in the sexual assault prosecution of a Lincoln man, the woman at the center of the case sued the trial judge this week because he barred "rape" and other words from the courtroom.

Too short for prison? Every time you think that irresponsible judges couldn't possibly do anything else to show more concern for perpetrators than their victims, a jurist possessing a "uniquely enhanced" sense of justice raises the bar. The state of Nebraska was home to the most recent example of this just last week, with the sentencing of a man convicted of child molestation.

Court: Gay marriage in Canada should be recognized in New York. An appeals court has ruled that a gay couple's marriage in Canada should be recognized in New York. The Appellate Division of state Supreme Court today reversed a judge's ruling in 2006 that Monroe Community College did not have to extend health benefits to an employee's lesbian partner.

Court: Just being in U.S. isn't illegal. While unauthorized entry into the United States is illegal, being in the country after having entered illegally is not necessarily a crime, according to a new ruling by the Kansas Court of Appeals. In a Barton County case, a three-judge panel issued an opinion Friday [8/17/2007] that a judge could not deny probation and order jail time for convicted drug dealer Nicholas L. Martinez based solely on the grounds that Martinez is an unauthorized immigrant.

Vehicle doesn't have to be occupied to be carjacked, court rules. A defendant who accosted a woman soon after she got out of her car, took her keys and then drove off is guilty of carjacking, not just robbery, the state Supreme Court ruled. Defendant Henry A. Edmondson Jr. had argued that his conviction in Nashville for carjacking was improper because the victim wasn't in the car when it was stolen.

Judge rules against film sanitizers. Sanitizing movies on DVD or VHS tape violates federal copyright laws, and several companies that scrub films must turn over their inventory to Hollywood studios, an appeals judge ruled. Editing movies to delete objectionable language, sex and violence is an "illegitimate business" that hurts Hollywood studios and directors who own the movie rights, said U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch in a decision released Thursday [7/6/2006] in Denver.

New York Panel OKs Pistol-Packing Judges. It's one way to assure order in the court. The New York state Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics has ruled that it is permissible for judges to pack a pistol beneath their robes while on the bench.

Losing an issue: Both the Senate and White House have risen from an all-year slumber that ignored their issue of judicial confirmations until now. Last Thursday night [7/20/2006], the Senate unexpectedly confirmed four judges, on a voice vote after no debate.

A Judge Who Deserves to be Benched. Anything that puts Democrats even an inch closer to appointing federal judges should be more than enough reason to get every right-winger off the couch and down to his polling place.

Dear Senator Kennedy: Resigning to Reform. Dear Senator Kennedy: Those of us who have been calling repeatedly for fundamental reform of what has become a corrupted judicial confirmation process can only read your July 30th op-ed in the Washington Post with astonishment. Most amazingly, after decades of abuse of the process you are now calling for reform yourself.

The face of judicial disgrace: By most accounts, Judge Edward Cashman was once a reasonable, fair-minded, common-sense Vermont jurist. Today, he epitomizes the black-robed high priests who are so familiarly out of touch with the will of their constituents and the laws of the land they are sworn to uphold. You've heard of Cashman. He's the judge who sentenced a child rapist to 60 days in prison because "anger doesn't solve anything. It just corrodes your soul."

The Ninth Circuit: Out of Control Judicially and Otherwise? The Ninth Circuit is a bit of a monster — for reasons of geography, population, number of Judges and, most conservatives and the Supreme Court of the United States would say, some of its peculiar jurisprudence.

9th Circuit Judge Sets Standard for Liberal Activism. The "right to privacy," which liberals maintain is implied in the U.S. Constitution and which was used by the U.S. Supreme Court to legalize abortion in 1973, apparently mattered little to Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals earlier this month when he ruled on a case involving parental rights.

Liberal judge: Federal District Judge James Robertson, who resigned from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (FISA) court in protest over secret wiretaps ordered by President Bush, is regarded in Washington legal circles as one of President Bill Clinton's most liberal and partisan judicial appointments.

High courts rebuke activist judges. The Court of Appeals, the highest court in the Empire State, answered all the involved parties with a 4-2 spanking of the activists and made perfectly clear that only the people of New York have the ability to redefine the institution of marriage, clarifying the division that exists between the judiciary and the legislature.

Scalia's good sense. Long known as the most quotable of the nine justices on the Supreme Court, Antonin Scalia turns out to be just as refreshing off the bench. … "Anyone who thinks the country's most prominent lawyers reflect the views of the people needs a reality check," said Scalia. Today's judges, he said, are no more qualified than "Joe Sixpack" to decide the kind of moral questions that have roiled political debate for decades.

Muslim inmate wins court fight. A federal judge has ordered prison officials to allow a Muslim inmate to be fed an appropriate diet and to wear a headpiece consistent with Islamic teachings.

Supermax inmate wins lawsuit over correspondence limits. An inmate at the nation's most secure prison has won a lawsuit challenging the Bureau of Prisons' restrictions on the types of reading materials inmates are allowed to receive by mail.

[Why is mail allowed in and out of the Supermax prison anyway?]

The Left's Tactics on Judicial Warfare: The Left has a history of distortion — of both words and a nominee's record — so you can't assume that they mean what you mean or what they say is the truth.

Better off dead. "What distinguishes the rule of law from the dictatorship of a shifting Supreme Court majority," Justice Scalia wrote this week, "is the absolutely indispensable requirement that judicial opinions be grounded in consistently applied principle. That is what prevents judges from ruling now this way, now that – thumbs up or thumbs down – as their personal preferences dictate."

Foreign law is not law. The Constitution of the United States expressly forbad retroactive laws — "ex post facto" laws, it called them — but judicial decisions creating new rights, duties, and nuances out of thin air are for all practical purposes ex post facto law. "Evolving standards" are also ex post facto law, for who can know in advance how someone else's standards are going to evolve, much less which evolving standards will get a majority of the votes in the Supreme Court?

Update: The information in this subsection has been added since the compromise agreement of May 23, 2005.

An Admission of Guilt. Conservatives have good reason to be unhappy with the agreement announced [May 23] concerning the Senate's judicial-confirmation process. The agreement does not guarantee up-or-down votes on all of President Bush's judicial nominees, nor does it restore the Senate's unswerving 214-year tradition of majority vote for all judicial nominees. In addition, the agreement attempts to rewrite Article II of the Constitution, by giving the Senate an advise-and-consent role in the nomination, as well as the appointment, of judges. … The agreement acknowledges that Owen, Brown, and Pryor should never have been filibustered in the first place.

Seven "extraordinary" idiots. The only way for Americans to get some vague semblance of what they voted for is to elect mammoth Republican majorities — and no "mavericks." (Fortunately, for the sake of civilization and the republic, that process seems to be well under way.)

Judicial Deal a Setback, Not a Defeat. John McCain can do anything he wants and the leadership does nothing because they are afraid he will leave the Party. Take note Republicans, John McCain has left the building, or more appropriately, he has left your Big Tent.

"Compromise" Always Positions to the Left. While compromise can be a good thing in theory, when applied as defined by the liberal left it is always a disaster for the conservatives in the United States.

The filibuster and Roe v. Wade: It is crystal clear that Americans are unhappy and concerned with the moral state of affairs of our country. The central aspect of that concern, as it concerns our judiciary, is legal abortion, as defined by Roe v. Wade. This is what this fight over judge appointments is about.

Minority rule: What has brought the country to the brink is not this president or conservative senators. It is rogue judges who have decided in their own minds – shaped by their own social and political biases – to reshape the country in their image.

One-sided deal, one-way trip. The agreement brokered this week by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and six other Republicans to preserve the power of 41 Senate Democrats to veto Republican judicial nominees was a one-sided deal, preserving a one-party vehicle that Democrats will use to keep driving America on what they hope is a one-way trip to the left.

The flinch heard 'round the world: Republicans were within hours of passing a procedural rule that would have eliminated the Democrats' unprecedented use of the judicial filibuster. It would not only have freed from filibuster limbo seven Bush nominees to the circuit courts, but it would have assured future nominees, particularly to the Supreme Court, an up-or-down vote. Then the Republicans flinched.

A betrayal of historic proportions. Though even some conservatives disagree, no matter how you spin it, this compromise agreement among the 14 self-anointed Senators is a big loser for Republicans and for the country.

The McCain mutiny: After all the glowing words surrounding the Senate "compromise" in which the Republicans folded their hand despite holding all the high cards, it is worth taking a look at who won what and why. The biggest winner is Senator John McCain, who once again sold out both principles and party, to the applause of the mainstream media.

Tell McCain it's "Joanie". Setting out this past week to prove he adores America, responsibility and institutional probity, John McCain actually proved he is one sorely confused politician. … To head off an immediate Senate dustup, he furthered judicial tyranny. He helped squelch a non-outrage for the sake of a real one.

Still brutish Senate: The lavishly acclaimed new era of good feelings in the Senate lasted less than four days.

A dead deal: In less than a week, the Democrats were back to their old tricks, this time filibustering the nomination of John Bolton to be U.N. ambassador.

The case for judicial term limits. The deal that pulled the Senate back from the brink of a shootout over judicial nominations this week didn't really settle anything. Democrats retain the right to filibuster future nominees "under extraordinary circumstances" — a phrase it is left to them to define. … Odds are the deal will collapse as soon as the next vacancy opens up on the Supreme Court.

A compromised party: The Republicans will be able to get a vote on three nominees — Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown, and William Pryor — people who represent the view that judges should enforce the laws passed by elected officials. Fine. But a lot more such judges need to be put on the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, to change the current pervasive judicial activism. Is that likely now?

Arizona taxpayers paying dearly for judicial activism. One of the most outrageous examples of out-of-control judges is the case called Flores v. Arizona, now pending in federal court in Tucson. Originally filed in 1992, plaintiff lawyers claim to represent an estimated 160,000 children of illegal immigrants attending Arizona public schools. The case seeks to force Arizona taxpayers to pay for bringing these children, euphemistically called English Language Learners, up to grade level.

Clinton-Appointed Judge Evokes Calls for Impeachment. While many conservatives want Congress to hold activist judges accountable, the House Judiciary Committee hasn't investigated a referral of a potential impeachment case involving a Clinton-appointed federal judge in Connecticut who engaged in what appeared to be a personal crusade to stop the execution of a serial killer.

Congress Has Constitutional Power to Reign in Activist Judges. Article III of the Constitution is the answer to judicial activism, [because it] can help Congress take away federal judges' power to legislate from the bench.

Do words break bones? It's a pretty sad day in America when one cannot criticize the judiciary and even individual judges without being accused of advocating violence against judges. This strained connection is but another example of liberals trying to chill conservative speech.

Judicial scandal: Documentary evidence is overwhelming. The NAACP Legal Defense Fund secretly requested that confirmation of a federal appeals judge nominated by President Bush be delayed until the court ruled in favor of affirmative action. The Senate, then under Democratic control, granted the delay.

The dishonest attack on Priscilla Owen: Justice Owen's resume is impeccable: top of her law-school class (completing undergraduate and law school in just over five years); highest score statewide on the bar exam; ten years on the Texas Supreme Court; reelected in 2000 with 84 percent of the vote and the endorsement of every major Texas newspaper; and the highest rating possible — a unanimous "well qualified" — from the American Bar Association (no conservative bastion), which Democrats once hailed as "the gold standard."

Nuclear? No, Restoration. Four years ago this week, President Bush nominated Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen to the federal bench. Four years later, she and six other circuit court nominees remain unconfirmed and unvoted upon because of Democratic filibusters.

Justice Owen's Opponents vs the Facts.

Disparaging dissent. Senate Democrats gripe that Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen and California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown have authored dissents. According to their detractors, the dissenting views prove them outside the mainstream and unfit for appointment as federal appellate judges. To accept the argument as a general standard for judicial selection would transform constitutional law into a petrified forest. As with the physical sciences, progress in the law begins with challenges to orthodoxy.

The Senate's Sham Debate. Senators droned on last week, supposedly debating two female nominees for the U.S. appellate bench, but it was a sham. The real issue was the future makeup of the Supreme Court, which explains the audacious Democratic strategy of blocking President Bush's choices for lower courts.

The Senate's "Dirty Harry": Even to threaten to obstruct the operation of the Senate during a war is something that boggles the mind, whether or not the threat is actually carried out. It also boggles the mind to see liberals defending filibusters, whose best known use in the past has been to block civil rights legislation. What they are really defending is the right of those who lost an election to prevent those who won from governing.

Big-time bigotry: The essence of bigotry is denying other people the same rights you have. For generations, it was racial bigotry which provoked filibusters to prevent the Senate from voting on bills to extend civil rights to blacks. But bigotry is bigotry, whether it is racial bigotry, religious bigotry or political bigotry.

Why the right judge matters: A single federal judge can change the will of a large majority of the people and their elected representatives. This is what dictators do.

Above criticism? Over the past several decades, we have gotten used to judges being above the law, so it was perhaps inevitable that we would now be asked to get used to the idea that judges are above criticism.

Invoking the "nuclear option" — there is no other option. I think Republican Party honchos may be underestimating the grassroots passion over the judiciary. The outrage against activist courts — and by no means are all of them activist — is real, growing and far from a fringe phenomenon.

The constitutional option: What's really at stake. The Senate does not have coequal authority with the president on judicial appointments as the advice-and-consent function was not intended to confer veto power on the Senate.

Disinformation on judges: This is not about two people being nominated to be federal judges. It is about the whole role of judges in a self-governing republic. The voters' votes mean less and less as time goes by, when judges take more and more decisions out of the hands of elected officials and substitute their own policy preferences, all under the guise of "interpreting" laws.

Liberals rally around judicial supremacy. The judicial supremacists are just plain wrong when they assert that the rule of law requires the U.S. Supreme Court to be accepted as the final arbiter of constitutional questions. They are actually demanding that the rule of judges replace the rule of law.

American Bar Association takes another swipe at the Bush presidency. The ABA also has a hard time understanding political balance. It apparently thinks its 10-person task force was fair because it included three "conservatives." … The ABA report on Presidential signing statements is a transparent political exercise, and the lawyers should at least have the nerve to defend it as such, rather than pretend they are some neutral body.

Judicial Houdinis: When judges use "legerdemain," "slight-of-hand" and "obfuscation" to describe a ruling by their fellow judges, it's a clue that the "dissenting opinion" isn't boring.

It's More than Judges. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid doesn't seem to get the fact that George W. Bush won the presidential election last November. He also doesn't get that the Republicans picked up five seats in the Upper Chamber. That's called a mandate. Despite this, Reid believes he can negotiate, or even dictate, which judicial appointments can be voted on in the Senate.

Confirm Janice Brown now. When California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown faced a retention vote in 1998, 76 percent of Californians voted to keep her on their state's highest court. In San Francisco, perhaps America's most liberal city, she won 79.4 percent.

The Democrats' full-o-bluster. The Democrats are indeed full of bluster, but the current debate over their obstruction of President George W. Bush's judicial nominees is no trivial matter. This debate is not about a "looming Constitutional crisis" — we are in the midst of perhaps the most serious Constitutional crisis since the War Between the States.

Democrats Step Up Fight Against Nominees. When Senator Bill Nelson of Florida stepped before the microphones Thursday [4/7/2005] to announce that he would use "every parliamentary procedure that is available to me" to block the nomination of Stephen L. Johnson to lead the Environmental Protection Agency, he became the latest Democrat this week to stand in the way of President Bush's nominees.

Democrats Block Several Key Nominees. In the Senate, already at the edge of war over changing the rules for filibusters, Democrats are using a courtesy known as "holds" to stymie President Bush's appointees to head the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency.

Benching the judges: Term limits aren't just for the U.S. President and legislatures in 15 states. They deserve to be extended, even to the Supreme Court. Why? … Partisan rancor in the U.S. Senate is dangerously high; add the issue of selecting federal judgeships, especially to the High Court and for a life term, and you reach meltdown.

Forgetting Facts While Making Law. In our system of limited government, with its separation of powers, we depend upon our unelected lifetime-tenured judges to restrain themselves from implementing their own moral, social and political values when they are unsupported by a plain understanding of the Constitution and at odds with the choices we make through the democratic process.

Where is that in the Constitution? Activist judges seldom rely on the words of the Constitution but on opinions of other judges that can be stretched and re-interpreted to fit the causes activists choose to promote or protect. Over time, the original intent of the Constitution gets lost in the sediment from layers of judicial interpretations.

High noon for judges. It is painfully ironic that we should be promoting the spread of democracy abroad when democracy is shrinking at home. Over the years, the outcomes of our elections have meant less and less, as judges have taken more and more decisions out of the hands of elected officials.

High noon for judges: Part III. People who complain about the frivolous lawsuits that have outraged some and ruined others financially need to connect the dots to the present Senate controversy over the confirmation of federal judges.

Justice Kennedy should stand for re-election. Now that he has made himself an uber-legislator, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy should do as lesser legislators do. He should stand for re-election. What I mean is, he should resign — and see if the president nominates him again, or the Senate confirms him. The Constitution, of course, sets no term limit for justices. They can resign, however, at any time.

Byrd's nuclear option. The unprecedented Democratic plan to filibuster judicial nominations that do not meet liberal specifications has exceeded all expectations. None of 10 filibustered Bush appellate court nominees has been confirmed, and another six are all designated filibuster victims. This is intended to have a chilling effect on Bush in filling Supreme Court vacancies.

Nuclear option is not nuclear. The Constitution empowers the president to appoint judges with the advice and consent of the Senate. The advice and consent power was never intended to confer co-equal power on the Senate over judicial (and other) nominations. Rather, it was designed to provide a legislative check to reduce the risk that the president would appoint unqualified judges or those with poor character.

The Importance of Righteous Judges - A Biblical Perspective. In the Senate of the United States of America there is a battle raging. The outcome of this conflict will determine the direction of the nation for generations to come. It will affect every area of our lives, from morality to legal questions. The struggle is over who will serve as judges in the federal courts of our land. It seems as if a person's political views are more important than their character; their social views more essential than how they view the Constitution of the United States. It appears that we are in a time of crisis in the judicial branch of our republic.

Ending Judicial Filibusters: As the Senate prepares for commencement of the 109th Congress, it faces a historic opportunity. To optimize this opportunity, the Senate needs to address the abusive use of filibusters against judicial nominees.

Bill Frist: Filibuster of Judicial Nominees is "Dangerous" and "Radical". The Senate must be allowed to confirm judges who fairly, justly and independently interpret the law. The current Minority has filibustered ten — and threatened to filibuster another six — nominees to federal appeals courts. This is unprecedented in over 200 years of Senate history. Never before has a Minority blocked a judicial nominee that has majority support for an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. Never.

Moderate Republicans May Sink Bush Nominee. A group of 'moderate' Republican senators may sink one of President Bush's conservative judicial nominees. If they do, it will mark the first time a Bush judicial nominee has been defeated by an actual vote (rather than a filibuster) in the Senate. Usually conservative Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R.-Tex.), who often votes with pro-lifers, in this case is the prime mover in a group of pro-choice Republicans who have been holding up Holmes, said Manuel Miranda — who until February 6 [2004?] worked for Frist on judicial nominations. Within the Republican conference, said Miranda, "Hutchison has been the principal problem."

A lynch mob gathers. The nomination of Justice Janice Rogers Brown of the California Supreme Court to become a federal Court of Appeals judge has brought out vicious special interest groups with their long knives — and a long record of smears and character-assassination, going back to the campaign of wholesale misrepresentations that defeated the nomination of Judge Robert Bork in 1987.

A lynch mob gathers: Part II. The lynch mob atmosphere that has prevailed during confirmation hearings for judges who believe in upholding the Constitution is already in evidence among the special interest groups who are more concerned with their own political agendas than with anything as abstract as the rule of law.

A lynch mob gathers: Part III. California voters are hardly known for being on the far right. Yet they gave Janice Rogers Brown the highest vote of approval among the four justices on the same ballot.

More Senate Judiciary Committee Chicanery: Every president is entitled and expected to appoint to the bench those who share his worldview. The nominee's party affiliation is not a legitimate reason for the other party to oppose confirmation unless, perhaps, it will lead him to judicial activism on the bench. But in such cases it's not his party affiliation but his activism that makes him objectionable.

People for the American Way: The Campaign to Control America's Vote: Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen is the latest victim of People for the American Way's campaign against President Bush's judicial nominees. On September 5, [2002,] the Senate Judiciary Committee in a 10-9 party-line vote rejected her nomination to the Fifth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals.

Minority Rules: Filibustering the Constitution. The Constitution requires only a simple majority of 51 senators to confirm a judicial nomination. Any Senate rule or procedure — filibuster included — that allows the minority of the body to prevent the majority from consenting to a judicial nomination is in conflict with the Constitution.

Gay Marriage and the Federal Judicial Confirmation Process: When judges cross the line from adjudicating into lawmaking, it makes sense that Americans will seek to exercise something like electoral control over who can be a judge. That is, when these two distinct governmental powers are not kept within their constitutionally-ordained bounds, it is inevitable that the process for creating new federal judges will become regrettably politicized, thereby threatening the independence of the federal judiciary.

Democrats continue killing Bush's judicial nominations: In a move that President Bush called "shameful," the Senate Judiciary Committee rejected the nomination of Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen to the U.S. Court of Appeals for 5th Circuit.

The Senate Is Supposed to Advise and Consent, Not Obstruct and Delay: Over a year after President Bush nominated his first group of circuit court judges, only two have been confirmed. Most have not even received a hearing, yet the number of vacancies on the federal bench has grown to crisis proportion.

Eight More Clarence Thomases: It seems safe to predict that President Bush's first Supreme Court nominee is going to set off World War III. A lot is at stake for liberals with the court. If they lose a liberal vote, they will be forced to fight political battles through a messy little system known as "democracy."

Journey into Weirdsville: Some of the stuff flying around about the nomination of Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen to the U.S. Court of Appeals is really beyond the pale. When the Senate Judiciary Committee votes on the nomination, probably next week, we'll see if there's any sanity left in the confirmation process.

Toward Priscilla Owen, Not Even The Pretense Of Fairness: In the days leading up to that hearing, the usual left-wing groups put out reams of paper purporting to show that confirming Justice Owen was the worst thing that could happen to the Fifth Circuit. This wasn't surprising; these groups exist to bork Republican nominees.

Liberals Paint the "Wrong Picture" of Priscilla Owen: Abortion advocates falsely claim U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit nominee is a conservative judicial activist.

Democrats Hold Judicial Nominations for 406 Days and Counting: Senate Democrats have held up hearings for the president's 46 judicial nominees for 406 days and counting. Former Attorney General Edwin Meese called the problem a "judicial emergency" and "one of the most important causes facing the nation."

Senate Democrats Prolonging Judicial Vacancy Crisis: It is sardonically amusing to note that when Bill Clinton was appointing judges the Dems liked, they claimed there was a crisis shortage of Federal judges, and rushed to confirm. Now a Republican will be naming judges, though there are more vacancies than before, Dems see no crisis and plan to block nominees.

Pickering Battle Places Congress on Verge of "Institutional Crisis": Republicans and even some Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday [3/7/2002] acknowledged that extremely bitter battles surrounding the confirmation of President Bush's judicial nominees are endangering the entire nomination process.

Democrat dillydallying: Senate Democrats running the obstruction campaign against President Bush's judicial nominees must be squirming in their seats as 2002 opens. There's no doubt such an obstruction campaign exists.

Feminists Attack the Judicial Nomination Process: All this year, liberals have been signaling to anyone who will listen that no matter how qualified President Bush's judicial nominees are, if they don't appear willing to rule the way the leftists want, those nominations are doomed to fail.

Senator Leahy does not meet his own standards: Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy continues to insist that with him at the helm, judicial nominations are being confirmed at fair pace and that the Democrats' record on judicial nominations does credit to the Senate. Unfortunately, neither claim is true.

Addressing the 'Judicial Vacancy Crisis': Senator Patrick Leahy, when the Democrats were in the minority in the Senate, set an agenda for confirmation of judicial appointments. Now that he heads the Senate Judiciary Committee, he is failing to live up to the standards he set.

Hijacking the Constitution: The Democrat Senate is going to any lengths to halt President Bush's judicial nominees. Take for example the nominee for the Ninth Circuit. He is a highly skilled lawyer and professor, a resident of Hawaii, which is in the Ninth Circuit. Hawaii's Senators passed legislation requiring that every state in a circuit have a judge on the bench, and it has been 17 years since a Hawaiian was. But they won't back Bush's nominee.

The O.J. Simpson Case and the War on Terrorism: Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, many conservative lawyers and pundits have repeatedly raised the specter of the Simpson verdict to argue that America's civilian criminal justice system is broken — and that people accused of terrorist offenses ought to be tried before military tribunals.

Take Technicality Out of Miranda. Because the Miranda rights are not constitutional in character, Congress is free to develop alternative approaches to the issue. Indeed, it is a little known fact that Chief Justice Earl Warren's 1966 opinion in Miranda specifically "encouraged" Congress and the states to develop alternative approaches to the Miranda regime.

Note: There is now a separate page about lawyers in general and frivolous lawsuits in particular.

Back to the top of the page

Back to the top of this page
Jump to the material about the Ten Commandments
Jump to the material about Property seizures
Jump into The Spillway, where this page and others overflow.
Back to the Home page