ConfirmThem

By AndrewHyman Posted in Senate Rules — Comments () / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

The Economist has a prediction:

Mr Frist seems to have assembled enough votes to carry out his “nuclear threat"—getting rid of the filibuster that allows Democrats to delay judicial appointments. The Democrats have a difficult choice—surrender, or risk losing their ability to filibuster Supreme Court nominees.

Meantime, Peter Friedman of Dartmouth, Massachusetts defends Justice Brown:

Forty-five years ago, Janice Brown lived in a discriminatory, segregated society that had been perpetuated by years of Senate filibustering. With the inspirational and visionary leadership of President John F. Kennedy, Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy and others, civil rights legislation eventually prevailed. Unfortunately, Janice Brown, who has been nominated to a federal appeals court, is again the victim of a filibuster, this time led by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy....

Friedman goes on to address two particular cases that have been used by Justice Brown's detractors to distort her record: American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren and Hi-Voltage Wire Works Inc v. City of San Jose. And, Brian Fahling takes on Al Gore; writing in Agape Press, Mr. Fahling arrives at this conclusion:

Democrats like Mr. Gore wish to continue populating the federal courts with judges who fancy themselves masters of good and evil. Judicial filibusters serve that end, at least by keeping off of the bench men and women who have a strong record of regarding the Constitution and the premises upon which it rests as relevant and authoritative --- expounders of the law, not masters of good and evil.

I agree. If judges monopolize all of the major "good versus evil" issues --- even those issues left completely unresolved by the framers of the Constitution --- then the people and their elected representatives must deal only with relatively trivial matters, and become pawns with little control over their own destinies.