Due to terrorist attacks, we must ban abortion...
Today's title come to us courtesy of Sen. Wayne Allard, who decries the filibuster because of -- you guessed it -- terrorist attacks. Somehow the Appeals Court is supposed to defend us from international terrorism. I've included a full-text snip from his "cogent" letter in the Comments section...
posted by Democra-she @ 1:47 PM
2 comments
2 Comments:
Here's the text:
In light of recent terrorist attacks, it is readily apparent that we face a new age of global unrest, a world in which terror has replaced formal declarations of war as the major threat against freedom and democracy. A necessary component of providing justice to those who would do harm to our nation is to maintain an efficient court system - a court equipped with the personnel and resources that enable it to fulfill its role as a pillar of our constitutional system of governance.
The current filibusters of President Bush's Circuit Court nominees
[Which current filibusters are those?]
clearly demonstrates [Ouch! "filibusters demonstrate..." your subject and verb should agree even when you are stretching the truth, Senator] an active effort by a minority of Senators to block the confirmation of well-qualified judicial nominees.
[Such as Priscilla Owen? She's a virulently anti-abortion Karl Rove protege whose stances are so biased that even Attorney General Alberto Gonzales called one of her rulings an "unconscionable act of judicial activism." For example, she gleefully attempted to eliminate or substantially narrow buffer zones around Houston abortion clinics - what would the reason for that be other than to make it easier and likelier for the protesters to become physically violent? Or perhaps Sen. Allard means William Myers, who would be appointed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, considered a stepping-stone to the Supreme Court. Pretty impressive given that he has never been a judge anywhere. As Solicitor at the Interior Department his constant activism on behalf of industry interests resulted in a number of disturbing conflicts, two of which resulted in ethics investigations; one of those investigations is still ongoing.]
I firmly believe that these tactics have damaged the judicial nomination process to an unacceptable degree, and now it must be corrected. It is shameful that the action of a handful of Senators has created a vacancy crisis that threatens the service of the very justice upon which our great nation depends.
[Funny he wasn't worried about the much greater vacancy rate imposed by Republicans blocking up-or-down votes on Clinton judicial nominees. In fact, Senator Allard himself blocked two of Clinton’s judicial nominees from receiving an up-or-down vote: James Lyons, 10th Circuit-Colorado and Patricia Coan, a District Court nominee. Additionally, he voted to filibuster two Clinton judicial appointments: Marsha Berzon and Richard Paez. When the Republican filibuster was broken by a cloture vote, Allard then voted to indefinitely postpone a vote (!) on Richard Paez’s nomination. For FOUR YEARS. Can you say, "hypocrite?"]
The Senate must move to end this stalemate, and act quickly to restore faith in the Constitutional process. I continue to urge my colleagues in the Senate to act diligently and to fill the vacancies that plague our courts. Some have suggested that diligent action requires a change in Senate Rule 22, a measure introduced by Majority Leader Bill Frist. I am actively engaged in this procedural debate and, should this matter proceed to the Senate floor, will act in a manner that is faithful to my constituents and respectful of the Constitution.
[Strangely for the Frist/Allard side of this debate, the Constitution does not say that a simple majority vote is required for Senate confirmation of nominations. It does say that the Senate will make rules about its procedures, and Senate Rule 22 currently requires 60 votes for cloture. "To read into the Constitution a simple majority requirement for nominations - let alone a prohibition on filibusters on nominations - would be the opposite of 'strict constructionism.'" -- NWLC Dec 2004]
Aside from the effects of the slow confirmation pace of the 108th
Congress, the filibuster of President Bush's nominees threatens the integrity of the Constitution, imposing a super-majority requirement where a simple majority was envisioned by the founders. I will continue to support responsible measures and procedures aimed at ending this obstructionist tactic.
[Sen. Allard conveniently ignores the fact that the Senate failed to confirm over one-third of the Clinton nominations to the Courts of Appeals, thus "...the balancing process that normally takes place over time, as administrations change, has not occurred. If this trend continues, the federal courts all across the country will be dominated by judges who do not support civil and women's rights or protections for workers or the environment." -- National Women's Law Center]
When the nomination finally comes before the Senate, I will support the confirmation of those individuals who will uphold the Constitution, abide by the text of the law, and who will resist temptations to legislate from the bench.
[Ahhh, so Sen. Allard will be voting against Owen and Myers, once an up-or-down simple majority rule is imposed? Since he dislikes "legislating from the bench" and even Atty. Gen. Gonzales recognized that Owen was really bad about that?]
In Federalist Number 78, Alexander Hamilton wrote that Judges
are the guardians of the constitution, "The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise will instead of judgment, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body."
[Oh, if you like the Federalist Papers, you ought to love James Madison's quote from Federalist #47: "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."]
You can be assured that I will continue to urge my colleagues in the Senate to move expeditiously toward the confirmation of well-qualified judicial nominees. It is time to show the American people that the Senate is indeed interested in the service of justice.
Sincerely,
A. Wayne Allard
United States Senator
[So, how did an on-average very intelligent and well-educated population wind up with Sen. Allard talking down to us and, well, lying to us? PAY ATTENTION, Colorado, this guy is not out for our best interests... and that happy horse hockey about needing to kill the filibuster because of "recent terrorist attacks" is just weird. He's had years to come up with a better reason than 9/11 - and I guess since he hasn't done so, there really isn't one.]
I empathize with the power of the urge to practice the procreative act (and vaguely related variations). Taking responsibility for the repercussions of that act ought to be a trait Democrats value. Republicans refuse to take responsibility for much: for lies leading to the deaths of thousands of Iraqis, for lies about Saddam Hussein. Republican employers refuse to take responsibility for the health and well being of their employees.
Post a Comment
<< Home