|
5-23-2005
The debate over Democrat filibustering of judges continues and the intrinsic desire of the elitist media to promote only
one side of the issue moves forward unabated. They relentlessly fret about the possibility that Senator Frist will invoke
the ‘nuclear option’... a Democrat talking point... and make the Senate abide by the standard that has been in
place for over 200 years.
The Constitution sets forth a precedent that only a handful of situations necessitates the
invocation of a cloture vote in lieu of a simple majority vote. A cloture vote is a Senate vote count in favor of a filibustered
issue by at least 60 members of the Senate to defeat the filibuster.
Filibustering and forcing a cloture vote on judicial
nominees who have passed the investigative committee that decides the qualifications of a person nominated for a judgeship
is not one of the few things set aside in the constitution. Once a judge passes through committee, it has always been standard
practice for that judge to receive an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor where a simple majority vote in favor of that judge
is all that is required.
Democrats who used to have majority control in Washington D.C. and have now found themselves
in the minority politically through elections are livid, and have relegated themselves to the party of obstructionism on almost
every issue facing the changing political climate among the American electorate.
Media elitists still regurgitate
liberal talking points as the status quo, but the political fire their negative rhetoric used to carry no longer rings true
to mainstream Americans who are now more informed on political issues than they have ever been.
In the past, liberal
Democrats claimed that they were the only party that promoted the advancement of women and that only Democrats championed
the rights of minorities and the elitist media lauded them with praise and positive press coverage.
Then President
Bush came along.
He started nominating more Hispanics, African-Americans, and women for nationally prominent positions
on the American scene than any president in American history. The past blanket statements of liberals that were lauded by
the press were illuminated as the empty rhetoric they had always been.
Liberal Democrats and their media cronies have
since openly attacked Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao, Secretary of Education Rod Paige, Secretary of State Colin Powell...
one of the few Republican African-Americans ever embraced by Democrats and the media... and both groups absolutely vilified
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
It would seem that as long as women and
minorities toe the political line of the Left and stay away from intellectual independent thought, then and only then, will
the acceptance of their race or gender status be protected from invasive and unrivaled scrutiny or character assassination.
You
see, this is now accepted practice because liberals have recently discovered what has before now been an enigma to them...
ideological principle.
For years when Republicans were against something or someone based on ideological principle,
they were publicly castigated as racist, homophobic, or demeaning to women. But now when a liberal Democrat utilizes it as
a stance against a woman or minority, it is ‘common sense’.
Liberal Democrats still don’t truly believe
in ideological principle, but they can implement it as a ruse to cover up the hypocrisy of their ‘about-face’
concerning support for women and minorities. Democrats are not being labeled hate mongers by the Right reciprocating their
own past treatment in these cases, but they are proving Democrats to be hypocrites.
Relating this to the judicial battle
in the Senate, Democrats are calling Republicans hypocrites by using a feint even media elitists have glommed on to. They
assert that Republicans filibustered a judicial nominee in the past... that’s right, they only have one example... Judge
Abe Fortis who was already on the Supreme Court and was simply nominated for the Chief Justice vacancy.
The problem
with this ‘example’ is that he never was truly filibustered. He was nominated, then passed through committee,
then after four days of debate... some of President Bush’s nominees for actual judicial seats have now been waiting
several years... they had a floor vote. The vote count was: On Oct. 1, Senate vote lost on a 45 (10R,35D) - 43 vote (24R,19D).
He didn’t even have the support of his own party and several Republicans voted for his confirmation! Media elitists
don’t want to report the facts because the facts don’t allow them to blatantly attack Republicans in their publications
and the uneducated liberal populace will continue to be fooled by their rhetoric.
Standing along side Senate Majority
Leader Bill Frist, Chairman of a group of African American pastors, Bishop Harry Jackson asked, “Why are they afraid
to put a black woman on the court?”, and he later said she is, ‘not only a legal hero for black America, she is
a legal hero for all America’.
The answer is referred to in the opening paragraph of a recent AP story, ‘Amid
Democratic complaints about radical right-wing activist judges’. ‘Radical right-wing activist judge’ is
a liberal label for, ‘anti-abortionist’ or a judge who is against abortion. It’s the ‘activist’
part that they are afraid of.
Liberal Democrats love activist judges because these judges usually don’t adhere
to the strict mandates of the law and go off on their own tangents when ruling on cases. If Justice Brown is a right-wing
activist judge... and could possibly make it to the Supreme Court... then being against abortion doesn’t sit too well
with the Left.
That’s what the filibuster over the judicial nominees is all about, abortion and the possible
future vacancies on the Supreme Court. The Left could care less if these nominees are solidly qualified and are absolutely
respected judges who would be positive additions to the federal courts.
The Left only wants them if they support the
unchecked, unregulated, undeterred, mass destruction of innocent unborn babies. In their world view, anything less would be
‘uncivilized’.
Lee P Butler
|
