Monday, May 16, 2005

Thoughts on judicial nominations.

In a few days, we'll be talking about judicial filibusters in the past tense. The battle started by a minority of Democrats will have appropriately been won by the Republicans. In the meantime, some thoughts on the Democrat talking points.

The Democrats' obsession with "minority rights." The minority does have rights. They have the right to pull themselves out of the minority by winning elections. They have the right to take politics more seriously than nominating this model of moderation and sensibility. They have right to allow themselves a more serious Minority Leader than one who calls a loser. They have the right to save themselves from eternal minority by easing hostility for people of faith while at the same time professing their own. Robert Byrd's recent 'admission' on the floor of the Senate that he's born-again isn't getting "separation" charges from the ACLU because nobody believes him.

Senate traditions. Nobody knows the tradition of the filibuster better than Robert Byrd. He's changed the filibuster rules more often than he's changed his sheets. You can almost forgive his memory because he's the only member of the senate who knows what life in the 13 colonies was like. Democrats are artificially concerned with senate traditions and Republicans about future cooperation if they pull the constitutional trigger, as if the Democrats have been cooperative and helpful anytime since prohibition.

The nominations are out of the mainstream. So out of the mainstream are Bush's nominations that Janice Rogers Brown, the first black woman on the California Supreme Court - labeled a "Neanderthal" by Ted Kennedy - was re-elected by 76% of the people from the right-wing juggernaut of California. The success of black women on their own merits is tangible proof that minorities don't need the Democrats in order to excel. In fact, if you are too talented, the Democrats will threaten shut down of the government in order to stand in your way under the guise of your 'extremism' while they get a free pass for what is clearly racism. If a judicial nomination is truly out of the mainstream, they won't be elected by a majority of Senators who were elected by a majority of Americans, a majority built because Americans have grown tired of obstruction. Ask Tom Daschle. It's not that the nominations are out of the mainstream, it's that they are firmly planted in the mainstream, but women and minorities advancing without the benefit of affirmative action are seen as busting the curve of the Democrat's lowered minority expectations.

If the filibuster rule is changed, it will end democracy as we know it. The kind of democracy that ignored the will of 60% Californians to ban gay marriage? The Democrats have successfully run PR interference to imply that the filibuster shows up somewhere in the Constitution. The one I'm reading doesn't have it, but it does say something about the Senate's responsibility to "advise and consent" on judicial nominations. Breaking the filibuster would allow a return to the Senate's duty.

The Left's ideas don't win votes. Losing seats in the last 3 elections, the Democrats are relying more and more on judicial activism, the Legislature of the Left, to move their agenda. They understand that their survival depends on liberal judges. They've quietly conceded that they may never win another election by acutely focusing their energy on blocking the constitutional responsibility of the senate to allow judicial nominations an up or down vote.

free web counters
Blue Nile Diamonds