<p>
I’m not talking about who coined the term. I’m talking about who started the “nuclear” war by deviating from centuries of Senate tradition. The point is that rules changes to eliminate the filibuster on judicial appointments would never be required if the Democrats hadn’t abused the rule and used the radical option of the filibuster to prevent the up/down vote in the Senate. </p>
<p>You can cite whatever you want about what the Republicans did in committee, but it would not have changed the final outcome if there had been an up/down vote. However, Frist and the Republicans are ready to declare that practice against the rules as well, but Harry Reid calls that a “wet kiss” to the right. Sounds like he just wants to fight.</p>
<p>
That’s what the judiciary was set up to do - interpret legislation. If they stuck with doing what they were meant to do, no one would have any arguments. In fact, the whole concept of fighting over judicial appointments would go away if judges would restrain themselves to interpretting legislation rather than creating it.</p>
<p>How novel would that be - a judge upholding laws instead of making them out of emanations and penumbras.</p>
<p>If the Founding Fathers wanted the courts to be able to overturn legislation they would have put it in the Constitution. Marbury vs Madison was the first usurpation. Ever since then the courts have been using their ill-gotten power to create different classes of citizens. The same court that “gave” us Brown vs Board of Education also gave us Grutter vs University of Michigan and Plessy vs Ferguson. Freedom is too dear a thing to be left to the whim of nine old geezers with a lifetime syncture.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Even if you want to spit liberal dogma at me, for every 1 case you consider good - I can give you 5 that are bad from any political viewpoint. FAce it, judicial activism is a bad thing, even if at this particular moment in history, it is helping liberals win some battles they would have otherwise been unable to.</p>
<p>Lifetime posts + judicial review =
not what the country was founded on but arguably beneficial.</p>
<p>Lifetime posts + judicial review + activist judges =
a recipe for disaster as well meaning idiocy (Affirmative Action which 80% of the country oppose) or outright wrongdoings (slavery itself numerous times, no runaway slave protections, seperate but equal, sodomy/adultry laws, no women voting, etc, etc, I could go on for days) become the unquestionable law of the land with no recourse against the injustice.</p>
<p>Lifetime posts + judicial review + activist judges + “living constitution” =
Sheer madness. The constitution can mean whatever they want it to mean, and what they take it to mean and the “laws” they set forth in precedent usurp all local, state, and federal law? All hail Queen Ginsburg, I! The founding fathers would be infuriated.</p>
<p>It might not be so bad if there was responsible use of these powers or balance between ideologies, but there often isn’t. Heck, recently a judge found a “guarantee to gay marriage” in a state constitution personally written by John Adams 200 years ago! I’ve squinted VERY hard at the text, but still can’t find where it says that!</p>
<p>They held an election in my hometown once and not only did the judge throw the results but he also sealed what the result was. It has become routine for state courts to declare state constitutional amendments unconstitutional!!! Apparently we are not only bound by the judiciaries interpretation of the law but we are barred from amending the our constitutions as well.</p>
<p>The democrats are so stupid. In the end they are just screwing themselves over.</p>
<p>Look, they have no hand to play. Its like the worst bluff ever. They oppose nominees by filibustering. You would think that would be a good move for them–wrong. When push comes to shove, the republicans are just going to get rid of filibustering when it comes to voting on nominees (which I see as a good idea, but whatever) Anyways, so the democrats are going to lose the filibuster, AND the nominees are going to get passed once that happens. What is the point? The democrats cant win! If they stopped acting like *******s, at least they could keep the filibuster. But, since they have NO LEVERAGE right now, to continue the fight is hopeless. </p>
<p>Let Bush appoints who he wants. THATS the tradition of the senate for centuries…</p>