Democrats Block Myers For Appeals Court Post

Senate Democrats have, for the seventh time now, blocked another appeals court from even coming up for a full vote on the senate floor. There are three things I'd like to bring up relating to this.

First, this is completely unprecedented. When Republicans were in the minority they never resorted to this type of obstruction. Neither Republicans nor Democrats in ALL of USA history have ever resorted to a filibuster for an appeals court appointee.

Second, this court appointee was slated to go on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, viewed as the nation's most liberal federal appeals court. This is the only Circuit Court of Appeals in the nation that has more Democrat nominees than Republican nominees. It is the court with the highest rate of rulings being overturned. It is the same Appeals Court that ruled "Under God" in the pledge is unconstitutional, which was later overturned by the Supreme Court. Republicans wanted this nominee to bring some balance to that court. But Democrats wouldn't even allow him on that unbalanced court.

Third, last but not least, this is a clear violation of the US Constitution. Which is why it has never been done before. The Wall Street Journal writes,

The Constitution requires a majority of Senators to confirm a President's judicial selections, and Mr. Myers -- like the six other filibusterees -- would be confirmed by a bipartisan majority if the Senate were permitted to hold a vote. Fifty-three Senators, including Democrats Joe Biden and Ben Nelson, voted yesterday to let Mr. Myers's name go to the floor. Forty-three Democrats and "Independent" James Jeffords refused to let that happen.


And for those of you who think the Senate Democrats will stop at seven, think again. The Wall Street Journal article writes,

Next up for likely filibuster are three nominees for the Sixth Circuit: Henry Saad, who would be the first Arab-American to serve on an appeals court; and David McKeague and Richard Griffin, who were voted out of committee on party-line votes yesterday.


Why are Democrats going to extreme levels to stop these Judicial nominees from getting through? The answer is simple, the Wall Street Journal writes,

One reason Democrats are working so hard to block Mr. Bush's best-qualified nominees is that they are relying on courts to push agendas they can't get through legislatures. The voters should understand that in picking a President and Senate they'll also be electing a judiciary that is (sadly but increasingly) a super-legislature.


If you think the Wall Street Journal is stretching here, just look at all the major liberal issues forced upon us. Affirmative Action, Abortion, and more recently the attempt to make Gay Marriage accepted by all. Whether these are good or not is besides the point, the important point here is that they were all forced upon us by activists judges, not by a vote.

Another important point to note is the first filibuster the Democrats performed on an Appeals Court Nominee was against Miguel Estrada. A native of Honduras. And arguably one of the most qualified of any Appeals Court nominee. Yet Democrats wouldn't even allow him to come up for a straight up or down vote in the senate. He later removed his name from consideration after many failed attempts.

Comments

  1. PraveenJuly 22, 2004 at 6:11 AM

    What makes the rulings from the court any less legitimate than the vote by the senate or the house? The rulings are madfe according to a specific set of guidlines called the constitution. The constituion is there fo exactly that. To aviod the tyranny of the majority which is very much possible in a democracy.

    ReplyDelete
  2. HispanicPunditJuly 22, 2004 at 6:24 AM

    The Constitution set up the seperation of powers for exactly this reason, the purpose of rewriting laws is for the legislative branch, not based on the whims of a few justices.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

John Kerry And Gay Marriage

With the recent resignation of Democrat New Jersey governor, announcing his homosexual affair , and the recent California Supreme Court decision voiding homosexual certificates I thought it a good time to discuss Presidential Candidate John Kerry's view on homosexual marriage. A few months ago there was a bill going through the senate that would have created a constitutional ammendment defining marriage as only between a man and a women. Kerry used the states right argument to argue against it. Arguing that we should let the states decide instead of forcing at the federal level. That's odd he would use that argument because when a bill came through the senate pushed through by Bill Clinton, called the Defense of Marriage Act, arguing for the exact same thing, Kerry voted against it . A bill that was passed with 85% of the senate voting in favor of it, with both Democrats and Republicans voting for it. However Kerry, being the extreme liberal that he is, voted against it. In c...
Read more

The Importance Of Kerry's Cambodia Claim

Image
As I have posted on this blog before , The Swift Boat Vets against Kerry have already caught Kerry in at least one lie; the claim that he was in Cambodia on Christmas of 1968. Joshua Muravchik, writing in the Washington Post explains why that lie is so significant, he writes , After his discharge, Kerry became the leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW). Once, he presented to Congress the accounts by his VVAW comrades of having "personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires . . . to human genitals . . . razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan . . . poisoned foodstocks." Later it was shown that many of the stories on which Kerry based this testimony were false, some told by impostors who had stolen the identities of real GIs, but Kerry himself was not implicated in the fraud. And his own over-the-top generalization that such "crimes [were] committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command...
Read more

Vietnam Boomerang

The issue here, as I have heard it raised, is was he present and active on duty in Alabama at the times he was supposed to be. . . . Just because you get an honorable discharge does not in fact answer that question. ----John Kerry, questioning President Bush's military-service record, February 8, 2004. So begins an article by the Wall Street Journal demonstrating how John Kerry brought the recent criticism by swift boat vets upon himself. The article states, A good rule in politics is that anyone who picks a fight ought to be prepared to finish it. But having first questioned Mr. Bush's war service, and then made Vietnam the core of his own campaign for President, Mr. Kerry now cries No mas ! because other Vietnam vets are assailing his behavior before and after that war. And, by the way, Mr. Bush is supposedly honor bound to repudiate them. What did Mr. Kerry expect, anyway? That claiming to be a hero himself while accusing other veterans of "war crimes"--as he did...
Read more