Tuesday, April 26, 2005

The Republicans Have a Litmus Test?

by The Windjammer

I have been reading for at least the past two months about a supposed litmus test for judicial appointments which is said to be solely the possession of the Republicans in the Senate. I have also been reading about the reasons for the objections to such appointments by the Democrats in the Senate. I am somewhat confused, as I am sure are most other observers who pay close attention to such things.

I can’t seem to recall a single instance of a nominee’s being either rejected by the Senate or the nomination put on hold in recent years in which the question of whether he/she supported or opposed random abortion was not the deciding factor for Democrats et alia in determining the opposition to the nomination. That sounds to me a bit like forcing a predetermined judgment on the judge before the case is tried. Never mind what the law says or the circumstances in the individual case. If we were to impose the same type of restriction on judges regarding dips, stick-up artists, wife-beaters, drug executives (dealers), and used-car salesmen who tricked us into buying a lemon, the uproar would cause a din in Denmark.

If that isn’t a "litmus test" imposed by the opposition, I wish someone would explain to my satisfaction just what it is. I hope you noticed that I spelled it "opposition," without a D or R.

We are now being threatened with filibusters to thwart the appointment of judges who don’t pass the test the liberals so desperately want. If they don’t get all they want, including rule by the minority, they threaten to shut down the Senate. I’m not at all sure that anyone would notice. "We" includes you and me, because the people are the ones who must pay for the mistakes of Congress, either in cold hard cash or in the cost to our freedoms. My fellow countryman, Will Rogers, said the same thing many years ago, but he was funnier than I. Congress hasn’t changed much.

If the "conservative" or "religious" judges of the past were so dead set against some of the things the liberals seem to believe to be so essential to the life style they desire, how in the world did we get such a decision as Roe vs. Wade and so long ago?

There is a segment within the judiciary in these United (?) States which continues to violate all principles of the republican form of government which we are supposed to have and which was prescribed in the Constitution. There have been numerous incidents in which the written and enacted law was circumvented and a new entirely different application instituted by the presiding judge.

Guess what tag even the liberal media hang on to such judges.

It ain’t "Conservative" with a capital C.

If there are those among you who believe that use of the filibuster in denying judges the right to a Senatorial vote up or down is a tradition of long standing, you need to do a little research to learn just when it really started. Filibustering has been around for what seems to be forever to this old Geezer, but its use in denying otherwise qualified judges a soft seat on a hard bench is relatively new.

Don’t take my word for it. Look it up for yourownself.

No comments: