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.