In Washington, a controversy is brewing over Republican plans to fill federal court vacancies with extreme right-wing nominees. At the center of the controversy is the so-called nuclear option. A simple change in Senate rules to make 51 votes, not 60, necessary to block filibusters on judicial nominees could change the dynamic of the courts for decades. The plan is the Republican's response to Democratic filibusters of 12 of Bush's 214 judicial nominees. After failing to obtain a filibuster proof 60-seat majority, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., is planning to use the gain of four Republican seats in 2004 to change the rules and rubber stamp the remaining 10 judges onto the bench (two judges received recess appointments, which bypass Senate confirmation completely.)
Both sides seem ready for a showdown. The typically bipartisan Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has threatened to shut down the Senate for all non-vital legislation if Frist goes forward. To obtain more support, Frist, a possible 2008 presidential candidate, and the conservative Family Research Council prepared a nationwide telecast that aired in churches and homes yesterday titled Justice Sunday: Stopping the Filibuster Against People of Faith.
For years activist courts
aided by liberal interest groups like the ACLU have been quietly working under the veil of the judiciary like thieves in the night
to rob us of our Christian heritage and our religious freedoms
the organization's imaginative press release states. Many anti-gay and anti-abortion advocates with strong religious convictions have not been filibustered, according to Joe Conanson, a liberal columnist writing for The New York Observer. He claims that the filibuster has been reserved only for the least qualified and most extreme of the President's nominees.
A brief glance at these judges shows them to be anything but well-qualified people
or people who know the difference between personal opinion and the strict interpretation of the law -President Bush's supposed standards for appointing judges. In fact, many of Bush's nominees have histories of rewriting laws or refusing to uphold other court's decisions because of their extreme right-wing views. Priscilla Owen, who has just been re-nominated and approved in committee, was even criticized by current attorney general and then-fellow Republican Texas Supreme Court Justice Alberto Gonzales. As reported by the progressive group People for the American Way, he charged her with judicial activism
a buzzword often used today to discredit judges with legal opinions that Republicans disagree with. A complete record of the filibustered nominees has been provided by PFAW (www.pfaw.org).
If the filibuster is overturned, judges with horrible records and extremist views on civil rights, consumer and environmental protections and workplace safety will be appointed to fill vacancies. But what about judges already appointed to life terms? Well, the lawyer and author Edwin Vieira, speaking at a conservative meeting titled Remedies to Judicial Tyranny
proposed an interesting remedy for dealing with the Supreme Court. Quoting Joseph Stalin, he said, He had a slogan
and it worked very well for him
whenever he ran into difficulty: 'no man
no problem'
