This extremist tag that the Democrats in the Senate keep trying to attach to filibustered judicial nominees in order to justify their obstructionism is getting old. These nominees are only extremists in the sense that they do not subscribe to the Democrats' liberal ideology; for according to the left anyone who does not believe in abortion on demand and gay marriage is surely a judicial extremist who should never get within reaching distance of a Federal bench. If these nominees really were extremists than they would get rejected in an up or down vote on the Senate floor. Republicans do not want extremists on the bench anymore than Democrats do, and if a nominee really is an extremist, either to the right or to the left, do you think that Republican senators such as John McCain, Chuck Hagel, George Voinovich, Arlen Specter, Lincoln Chafee, Olympia Snowe, or Susan Collins would ever vote for them?
Of course not.
The Democrats aren't filibustering these nominees because they are extremists, but rather because the federal judiciary has become the last institution in American government that the Democratic Party can hope to push their liberal views with. They no longer control the nation's popularly elected bodies, so they must use the bench to push liberal policies onto the rest of the nation. Allowing the promotion of judicial conservatives and judges who would rule based on what the framers intended is simply unacceptable, and thus they feel they have to break centuries-old Senate precedent and prevent these types of judges from receiving the up or down vote they deserve.
Trying to paint these nominees as extremist is nothing but a cover to draw attention away from their true motives, which is to prevent some judicial restraint from ever reaching the federal bench.
Amen to this post! You are on the money!
ReplyDeleteSo Geoff...
ReplyDeleteAre you honestly pushing the notion that the other 204 judges approved were only approved because they believed in "abortion on demand and gay marriage?"
The 95% of Bush's appointees were all liberals and the Democrats are only filibustering these last 7 because these 7 don't believe in "abortion on demand and gay marriage?"
That seems to be your argument, which seems a bit "whiny." If I'm misinterpreting, please clarify.
It seems to me that if you let 204 go through with little fuss and refuse to let 7 because they have demonstrated their inability to keep their bent political views out of the courtroom, you are doing the federal judiciary a favor.
I know it would have been a victory for conservatives everywhere to let Terry Schiavo suffer for another 30 years in a hospital bed, defying the moral belief of mainstream America and core human values. Putting ideologues in the judiciary isn't the answer.
At the end of the day, I want judges who show measured reason, and a good constitutional sense, not entrenched political views, be they left or right.
I'm astonished at the fuss over 7 judges with demonstrated courtroom bias. Its almost like Bush and the rightwing-nuts would trade the 204 confirmed judges for the 7 judges they know would always rule on the their side regardless of the case. Maybe we can cut a deal and put the 7 radicals on the bench and take the 204 back?