As most of us are now painfully
aware, liberal legislators are routinely filibustering
judicial nominees, supposedly because the views of those
individuals are not "mainstream". What liberals
really mean when they say the word mainstream is that the
nominees are not pro-choice. They may argue against
judicial nominees on other grounds, but it is apparent
that their primary concern is with protecting the sacred
cow of the liberal abortion-on-demand movement, the
Roe v. Wade
decision. Of course, the idea that women should not
kill their unborn children when they have not been raped,
or their lives are not in jeopardy, is indeed a
mainstream opinion in the United States. It's
actually more mainstream than the opposing view, and it
always has been. It's simply not a liberal point of
view, and to liberals, any view which is not theirs is
not considered mainstream.
These people seem to think that
because they are practically incapable of making rational
decisions regarding the actual laws of the land when
those laws fail to reinforce their ideological worldview,
that others are equally as deficient in this regard.
Well, that simply isn't true, and, furthermore, judging a
nominee to any court based upon an ideological difference
of opinion is just plain improper. They are
certainly free to argue that a person has shown poor
judgment in the past, but just how do they define poor
judgment? Liberals, like conservatives, are always
going to believe that people on the opposing side of the
political fence are exhibiting poor judgment, simply
because they are not on THEIR side of it. If the
acceptance of a person's political worldview or moral
beliefs was to become the "litmus test" for qualification
to a judgeship, nobody would ever get past first base
with our elected representatives. Literally NO ONE
would ever be considered capable of being a judge!
No qualified judicial nominee
should ever be opposed because of his or her personal
feelings regarding abortion, or any other social issue
for that matter. It's not relevant to their ability
to uphold the laws of our country. Furthermore,
unlike most liberals, conservatives do have the ability
to distinguish between reality and what they would like
to see become a reality. Conservatives are, by
their very nature, not very activist in most respects,
and certainly not as activist as liberals have
demonstrated they are, time and time again. That's
why it's so ironic, as well as absurd, that they are the
ones who are now crying wolf where the issue of potential
judicial activism is concerned.
There are always exceptions to
every rule, and I'm not suggesting that there aren't some
fervid conservative activists in this country, however,
none of the nominees currently being filibustered in the
U.S. Senate have exhibited a strong tendency toward legal
activism, or an inability on their part to uphold the
laws they would be charged with ruling upon.
Determining whether a person should be considered
qualified to be a judge isn't supposed to have anything
to do with their political persuasion or personal
beliefs, but you wouldn't know that to hear
talk. In his mind, anyone who voices an opinion
which is contrary to any law he happens to agree with is
automatically disqualified to be a judge.
The true measure of a good
jurist, however, is whether they have displayed the
ability to look past their own ideology and logically
follow the written law, and in each of these cases, the
individuals being scrutinized have done so. In
fact, they have all received the highest of ratings by
the American Bar Association, and when gauged by any
reasonable standard, have been declared appropriate
judicial nominees by their peers. Still, that
hasn't stopped Senate Democrats from hounding them
relentlessly, doing everything in their power to
assassinate the character of each and basically behaving
as if they were all bigots of one form or another.
The contentions of these Democrats are as hypocritical as
they are derisory.
Let's suppose that our standards
for judicial qualification were based upon whether or not
a nominee believed that every single law currently on the
books in the U.S. was proper and should never be changed.
That would mean that anyone who has a problem with any
law would never be qualified to be a judge, yet when a
politician says that a person isn't qualified because
they are morally opposed to Roe v. Wade, or some other
controversial law, they are basically saying just that.
They are suggesting that a judge can't oppose a law
morally and still uphold it in court. That, of
course, is ridiculous. No judge or any other human
being agrees with every law, it's just not possible.
So does that mean that we have no good judges in this
country? Surely not, but if you buy into the
liberal arguments which excuse the filibustering of our
President's nominees; people like Priscilla Owen, Miguel
Estrada and Bill Pryor, you're essentially supporting the
argument that there aren't.
The best measure of a person's
ability to be a judge is whether or not they have proved
themselves to be capable of understanding the literal
meaning of any given law, and ruling appropriately based
upon that understanding. Judges aren't meant to be
cheerleaders for causes, they are supposed to rule with
impartiality and with deference toward our Constitution.
Any judicial nominee who does not exhibit the proper
respect for a law, merely because they disagree with it
on moral grounds, should not be a judge. By the
same token, anyone who may disagree strongly with a
particular law, yet is still able to enforce it in court,
is as qualified to sit on the bench as any jurist who
agrees with it.
What we are seeing in our Senate
these days is an ideological witch-hunt. The
minority party has simply decided to block any nominee
whom they believe to be too conservative minded.
All of the nominees who have been tirelessly probed,
maligned and ridiculed for their beliefs by people like
Patrick Leahy and
are among the most highly qualified people going these
days. In every relevant respect, they have proved
themselves to be capable, thoughtful and learned
individuals with experience and good character. It
is absolutely reprehensible that any of them should be
singled out because of their political points of view,
and for Senate Democrats to actually take up the extreme
measure of filibustering them, is beyond despicable.