Something has been lost in the noise of the debate on the filibuster, namely the time crunch involved in getting solid judges appointed to the bench. There are several things to note.
1) There will be vacancies soon in the Supreme Court. No one knows how soon is soon, but these people aren't going to live to 150. I'm sure a few are waiting to see how the filibuster fight plays out.
2) There is an election in 2006 coming up and there are endangered Republicans this time around (Santorum comes to mind).
3) Bush is gone in 2008. There is no solid conservative that looks to be emerging anywhere close as a frontrunner. Sure, it's too soon to tell, but Rice and Guiliani are not pro-life. McCain is more interested in preserving the status quo that actually moving to do much about pro-life issues. He's certainly no conservative. People mention Arnold, but a amendment is unlikely and he's not precisely pro-life himself anyway.
The facts are that whatever judges Bush gets through will be around for awhile and he could shape the court for a long time given the opportunity. However, once he's out of office, there is not much hope of getting a solid pro-life President to appoint solid pro-life and/or conservative judges. The Democrats know this. They know McCain or Guiliani's picks will be much more to their liking, they just have to stall for rain. (This says nothing about the decent possibility of a Democrat president).
The dam must be knocked down and now. Until it is, there will be no Supreme Court vacancies except in the case of death or significant illness (more significant than Rehnquist's apparently). At best, they can hope for Rehnquist to step down and let the Dems filibuster his replacement that has no hope of changing the composition of the Court (except perhaps lurching it leftward). The would be a PR nightmare.
But as long as no solid conservatives get through there will be no ability to remake the juristocracy that so desperately needs to be undone. If the roadblock doesn't get moved, there will be no hope to overturn Roe v Wade for decades. The winner of the filibuster fight gets control of the courts. If the GOP wants to play second fiddle to the DNC even though they are in the majority, the DNC picks the courts and the window slams shut.
Now is the time to end the juristocracy and restore the Republic... will the GOP have the courage to do it?
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Eric Olsen
thanks and welcome John! I don't think most Republicans REALLY do want Roe V Wade to go away because it gives them cover for their anti-abortion rhetoric without having to actually do anything about it, which would alienate much of the middle
2 - John Bambenek
Thanks. :)
Well that may be the difference between Republicans and Conservatives. Republicans want to win elections. If you really believe abortion is murder than you'd make that call without regard to the "middle". Though overturning Roe v Wade wouldn't outlaw abortion (well I suppose how it was done). The ideal would be to return it to a state issue instead of a federal question. At least then we can get back to real federal business without the pro-life - pro-chioce carping that overcrowds everything else.
3 - Eric Olsen
I'm sure that's true John, though anti-abortion isn't necessarily a "conservative" position, though it certainly is a "social conservative" position
4 - Steve S
Thank you for showing America the importance of the filibuster and the justification for the noble reason Democrats are blocking Bush's judicial nominations on the federal level.
Conservatives, who are differentiated from Republicans in comment 2, but who are clearly running the Republican platform in total control today, make it clear here, that they don't want to put forward judges with an ideological mindset of seeking to find and uphold the principles of the Constitution in regards to matters that may come before the court. Rather they've already decided what's constitutional themselves and are looking for judges who can just find the verbage to make it so. Those aren't judges. Judges make decisions. But decisions have already been made here. What they want to install are puppets.
I agree with you Eric, that moderate Republicans probably don't want this. Moderate Democrats certainly don't. I don't understand why the silent majority is still silent.
5 - John Bambenek
Eric - Ok, that's fair, abortion isn't necessarily conservative :) Though I'm really unsure of what social conservative really means. The word conservative is very often misused.
Steve - The silent majority often only speaks up on election day. They'll remember in 06 how this plays out, and they'll certainly remember in 08. The majority belongs to the GOP and it is theirs to blow.
Though to be honest returning abortion to the states I don't think would upset the moderates much (well not on the national level) and allows for some real consensus solutions here. Roe V Wade took the discussion away from the public and the public overwhelmingly wants some say here. It is debateable whether there is majority support for a ban, but there is certainly a very high number of people that would favor restrictions impossible with abortion being a federal question.
6 - Steve S
Roe V Wade did not take the discussion away from the public. It gave the decision to the woman. You want to put a judge in place who will take that decision away from the woman and give that decision regarding her body to the general populace. That does not matter if it is a case of succeeding here/failing there. Ideologically, it is a failure all around.
You, as a person, a citizen, have made a constitutional decision regarding abortion and you just want to put forward a judge who will justify your already made decision for everybody else. You don't want a judge to make his own decision, you want a judge to reaffirm yours. That is not the purpose of the judicial branch.
7 - Steve S
Just for clarification, since it seems there are a lot of people who support this 'fight for the court', it is Roe v. Wade that kept the decision making within the general public. Specifically giving the decision making to the woman.
It is the ideology in the post above that would actually be the one to seek to remove that decision from the general public. NOT the other way around as is being presented.
8 - John Bambenek
Fine, we can talk about it, but we can't do anything about it. And yes, that's exactly what I want, because (1) it is either intentional murder of a child, or (2) a desperate woman being used by a corporation to make a quick buck and deposit her back into he bad situation. And like I said, I'd rather the judge say it is a state issue and let the people fight out what they want. I have my preference, but what I'm arguing is that a federal judge elevating it to a constitutional right means that democracy is that much weaker. If you feel a woman has a right to choose, you can convince 50% of the population, what's so wrong with that?
9 - John Bambenek
And to your clarification, I'd rather the states deal with it so discussion CAN take place. I don't think a federal law outlawing abortion is the way to go and I think it's a shame the whole issue was elevated to the federal system in the first place. I'm tired of so many things being federal issues decided by judges. Why can't the citizens of a state decide about abortion? Why can't the citizens decided about gay marriage without having to resort to an amendment to nullify judges decisions?
Is democracy so wrong?
10 - gonzo marx
first..hello John, and welcome from all the Trolls...
it is refreshing to read the honest rantings of a blatant partisan who makes no bones about his/her Agenda
as we see here, it's all about Roe v Wade, after all, the procedural argument is just a sham..even this Poster intimates that the Fact remains that 68 judges were blocked during the Clinton administration, whereas all of 10 have been blocked during Bush's term
yet now they want the Rules changed
and all so that a Decision made by the Supreme Court about the Constitutional issues within Roe v Wade can be OVERTURNED...
yep kiddies, not a new Interpertation of some Law or Issue that has not been resolved, but the goal here is to stack the Court to overturn the standing Decision.
nice to see it admitted so openly for once
as for the Issue itself, one would think it a true "conservative", small government Ideal to keep the government, state or federal, out of any medical decision between a woman and her doctor
your mileage may vary...
Excelsior!
11 - Steve S
And yes, that's exactly what I want
Thank you for your honesty. I do not feel that is what our judicial system is there for, and I hope that the majority of Americans agree.
Why can't the citizens of a state decide about abortion?
But they already can, right on down to the most affected citizen. Whether it is a federal ruling or a state ruling, it is still a governmental ruling taken out of the control of the populace. States are no more saviors to the individual than the federal government is. They are both governmental bodies, they are both made up of elected officials working on behalf of their constituents.
If you want discussion to take place so bad, go talk with women. It's their decision, so discuss it with those who already have the power. Don't work to strip citizens of their power giving it to the State, then say NOW it's open for discussion.
Why can't the citizens of a state decide about abortion?
What is different about a law mandated by the State government vs. a law mandated by the Federal government, other than geographic miles covered? It's still mandated.
Why can't the citizens decided about gay marriage without having to resort to an amendment to nullify judges decisions?
So far it has been 1) citizens voting on marriage and 2) state rulings on marriage. There has been no federal ruling 'forcing' you to allow us to be married. So I'm not sure why you use this as an example other than bait.
The attempts to modify the Constitution is because the State body judicial system, rather than the Federal body judicial system ruled against conservatives.
It's all fine and good to rail about taking power from the federal government and giving it to the state, saying it's more power to the people, but of course when the state rules something you don't like, then it's back to the federal government to try to circumvent that with amendments.
Let's just be clear to all, and thank you so much again for confirming it. It's not about anything other than putting judges in place to put forth an already determined agenda. Presented under the guise of giving the power back to the people.
12 - John Bambenek
Gonzo -
Maybe you don't know what conservative means. First and foremost, it's not a party but I don't hide what I stand for, I think Roe v Wade was a sham. Is the agenda Roe v Wade, no, not as such, it's more an issue of restricting what judges can decide on. I'd rather deal with abortion, gay marriage, et al in legislatures. Conservativism quite clear states that social institutions should be grown organically from the people, not imposed from the top. I'm not saying abortion should be made illegal federally, but I'm saying it should be returned to the states. But also, limited government does not mean functionally anarchy. Government has a legitimate purpose to conservatives, we don't support overturning laws on rape or theft. Enforcing murder laws has a place, and that includes in the womb.
As far as judges being confirmed take a look at http://jcb.pentex-net.com/archives/2005/04/are_bushs_judge.html but I've also stated in my own blog, I'd like to actually SEE a filibuster first.
Steve -
Discussion can't take place... pro-lifers are not allowed near clinics CERTAINLY not to talk to people entering. (See FACE laws). The difference is that communities are better able to know what they need and want. What's good in Texas is not the same as Maine. Why not let the citizens of the state decide how they want their state run? That way if you want a state run a certain way, you can move there. Federalism is good because it allows many more people than a simply 50% to be happy with their government because they can choose to move to a state that more supports their ideals.
As far as gay marriage, you would be right if it weren't for the "full faith and credit" clause. When Mass. said gay marriage was in their Constitution (somehow) it makes it a federal question about other states recognizing it. That is why that litigation happened on a state level first, that's how we got no-fault divorce in all 50 states.
Of COURSE it's not about anything else than putting judges with a certain agenda on the bench. Bush isn't appointing MoveOn approved judges, and I'm sure if he did there would be no problems. We put the GOP in power, we want him to make decisions based on our ideals, and that includes a restrained judiciary.
13 - Dave Nalle
You all know me. I'm a relatively conservative guy on many issues. But I've got no problem with filibustering. If the Dems can do it here then the Republicans can do it at some other time.
My only objection here is that the Dems chose to filibuster these particular judges with no logical reasoning behind it. They let what, 170 other judges through, and then block these 10 who are no better or worse overall than the ones they gave a pass?
If they're going to filibuster why didn't they use it to block specific judges who really did have questionable records, rather than just waiting until they got to the last few and block them just because they were there? At least three of these judges are very moderate and only two of them appear to be dyed in the wool fundamentalist ideologues.
It just seems like in these cases the Dems are filibustering mainly to prove that they can and to get some press, not to achieve anything meaningful.
Dave
14 - John Bambenek
Well I'd like to see a filibuster myself, I'd rather see them call the bluff instead of trying to dig around it first. I just don't see what the big fear is here.
15 - Dave Nalle
Whatever happened to the good old days when 'filibustering' meant private armies invading small central american countries, anyway?
Dave
16 - Steve S
by talking to women, I meant in your churches, other social gathering places you all hang out. Instill the values that you hold dear in others around you and you will get the results you want. Far better and far more 'of the people' than puppet judicial systems and laws restricting what you can do with your own body, don't you think?
As far as gay marriage goes, so far all State levels, rather than Federal ones, have determined that it is an infringement on one's civil liberties to be excluded, so I can only conclude you support tyranny of the majority in that case. In that case, give it to the voters, we just pick who we give things too, based on if we're going to like the results or not, apparently.
It's really all about being fine with Federal rulings until we don't like them, then say we want to seek the rulings from the State level, but then when we don't like that, saying it needs to be put to the voters, but when we don't like that, going back to the Federal level and starting over differently.
Maybe one should stop and consider that in order to progress one's agenda this way, there might be something wrong with the agenda.
17 - John Bambenek
Who says we aren't doing that. But I kinda do have a problem with, say, the fact Planned Parenthood covers up child rape. Abortion clinics are the scum of the medical community and it would be far better not to have these places taking advantage of the women we can't get to first.
Yes, it is so tyrannical that I don't accept gay couples as married... that's right on par with internment. Great comparison.
But if you want to keep twisting my arguments, you can do it by yourself now. IWNBT
18 - Phil Bondo
If true, I would guess that puts Planned Parenthood on par with the Catholic Church.
19 - John Bambenek
Actually, the Catholic Church in all 50 states for 50 years... 10,000 accusations.
PP in the State of Illinois in the year 2000, 10,000 cases.
I think PP far surpasses the Catholic Church. For that matter, so does public schools.
20 - Steve S
Reading the link provided, which was to your own blog rather than an actual news source, I saw that your definition of covering up child rape was the fact that a minor can get an abortion. That is how you define PP helping cover up a rape.
PP helps terminate the pregnancy, it does not cover anything up. By using that flawed logic, as well as the data you post in your link as to how YOU come up with the number 10,000, which is your number of UNREPORTED abuse cases, I'd have to say that it's nothing like the Catholic church.
The catholic church protects and hides the molestor. PP has no idea who the father is, in most cases, I'm sure. They certainly don't shuffle them around to avoid the law. Your logic is very flawed.
21 - Steve S
I'm not sure where internment came from. Don't know why that would be running through your head.
22 - Dave Nalle
The reason why abortion clinics are the 'scum of the medical community' is that they've been stygmatized and they're under constant harassment so that people who go there are afraid of being accosted by bigots with placcards who take their picture, wave fetus photos in their faces and shout insults. That puts the abortion clinic in a virtual medical ghetto, so the blame for any unsavoriness associated with them goes pretty much to the intolerant folks who put them there.
Dave
23 - John Bambenek
Steve-
You didn't actually read my article did you. Particularly the report about mandatory abuse reporting...
Dave-
Try again. Abortion practioneers have never been looked fondly upon because of the high rate of quacks and shopshod doctors they employ.
24 - Steve S
100% agreement Dave. That also reminds me that I should point out, when I said 'go talk to women', I wasn't thinking of the way they usually talk to these women. I didn't mean that way, of course.
25 - Dave Nalle
But Steve, to talk to women they'd have to think of them as human, not just walking incubators for Jesus.
Dave