Barber Shoppe Gazette Articles Are Also Indexed Online At ... This Is What Liberal Democrats Call "Change."
Senate Democrats, of course, are complaining that the president is reneging on his “promise” of bipartisanship made in a post-election speech last Wednesday. But they have not a shred of credibility on this point. Liberals in the Senate have turned the judicial confirmation process on its head, obstructing the president’s judicial nominees for political reasons. They even resorted to launching judicial filibusters, ignoring the constitutional directive to provide up-or-down votes on all judicial nominees. Why? Not because the nominees were unqualified. But rather because they didn’t like the nominees’ philosophy of judicial restraint. (Many liberals only like judges who will legislate from the bench.)
From the Desk of Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton:
Bush Re-Nominates Conservative Judges
This week the president sent a signal to Capitol Hill that he is only willing to go so far in the “spirit of cooperation” with Senate Democrats. This according to the San Jose Mercury News: “On Wednesday the White House indicated that it will renominate six candidates during the lame duck session who have not earlier received a Senate floor vote because of Democratic opposition.” Senate Democrats, of course, are complaining that the president is reneging on his “promise” of bipartisanship made in a post-election speech last Wednesday. But they have not a shred of credibility on this point. Liberals in the Senate have turned the judicial confirmation process on its head, obstructing the president’s judicial nominees for political reasons. They even resorted to launching judicial filibusters, ignoring the constitutional directive to provide up-or-down votes on all judicial nominees. Why? Not because the nominees were unqualified. But rather because they didn’t like the nominees’ philosophy of judicial restraint. (Many liberals only like judges who will legislate from the bench.) Republicans in the Senate made matters worse by folding in the face of Democratic resistance. Remember the so-called “Gang of 14” moderates in the Senate? Seven Republicans broke ranks and brokered a deal with seven Democrats to allow a few of the president’s judicial nominees through, while leaving open the possibility of future judicial filibusters. This compromise struck a fatal blow to the president’s attempts to push some key conservative nominees through by undermining any leverage the Republicans held in being the majority party. (Check out an op-ed I wrote last summer on the subject, Senate Abandons Judicial Nominees.) The president should be congratulated for standing by his conservative judicial nominees. Unfortunately, no one -- not even the president, I’m sure -- expects these nominees to receive an up-or-down vote before the end of this lameduck session. And in January, when Democrats gain control of the Senate, what incentive will they have to fairly treat judicial nominees? Republicans in the Senate had an opportunity to confirm conservative judges to the bench, and they blinked. Conservative candidates had an opportunity to educate voters on the importance of the “judge issue” in the last election cycle, but they did not. We must look no further than the recent New Jersey Supreme Court decision on gay marriage to see the price we will pay for these failures. Thomas Fitton President
Judicial Watch is a non-partisan, educational foundation organized under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue code. Judicial Watch is dedicated to fighting government and judicial corruption and promoting a return to ethics and morality in our nation's public life. To make a tax-deductible contribution in support of our efforts, click here.
Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below |
No comments:
Post a Comment