COURT, POLLS, AND ELECTIONS
JUDICIAL ACTIVISM AND THE FILIBUSTER

By: Dave Franklin

Whether they always agree with President Bush or not, conservatives are unanimous in supporting a position he articulated during both the 2000 and 2004 elections. The duty of a judge is to interpret strictly the law and the Constitution, not to impose a political agenda disregarding the elected legislatures. This principle stands in contrast to the ideology of Democrat politicians that support legislation from the judicial bench on issues ranging from abortion to capital punishment and gay marriage. The ongoing effort by Senate Democrats to filibuster judges nominated by the President is rooted in this conflict of principle.

Citing grand stature of the Senate as an august deliberative body established by founders of the United States, Democrats have taken to accusing Republican Senators of being overly influenced by ideology. That’s a lot like Jose Conseco asserting that Michael Moore is on steroids. Senators who would end filibusters on judges are "Radical Republicans", so claims the left. Yet who is blinded by ideology to the point of derailing the full Senate’s consideration of appointments to federal courts as prescribed in the Constitution?

Even after former Senate Democrat leader Tom Daschle lost his election at least partially due to obstruction of the President’s nominations for the courts, Democrats continue to block every constructionist judge that aims at strict interpretation of the law and Constitution. They are so desperate to maintain leftist ideology through judicial activism that liberals have employed yet again the Senate’s rules on legislative debate for the purpose of preventing a vote on the President’s nominees. The filibuster has become a standard weapon with which Democrats attack the Senate’s Constitutional responsibility to affirm or deny consent.

The motive of liberal exponents who are undermining the Constitution by thwarting the Senate’s duty to vote on nominees is easy to identify. Here is the bottom line: members of the Supreme Court are getting old and the recently re-elected Republican President has said he opposes judicial activism, which, for left-wing world collectivists and their allies in the Senate, is nightmare combination. If losers of the 2000, 2002, and 2004 elections also lose their ability to exercise a veto over the President’s judicial nominations, no longer might they depend on federal courts to impose left-wing socialism and humanism overruling elections.

Senate Democrats are not alone in fearing the end of leftist judicial imposition. They have minions in the liberal press and radical groups like MoveOn.org. Ridiculous television ads, almost so pathetic that you feel bad for the losers who made them, have started appearing. Polls that lack any shred of credibility are being conducted and reported with banner headlines as important news. Worst of all, Al Gore has started making speeches again.

Gore and his media cohorts say most of the American people don’t support ending the filibuster on judicial nominations. They cite a Washington Post/ABC News poll from April 25. But any close look at that poll reveals it is utterly flawed. The poll shows that 47% of the people surveyed identify with the Democratic Party and only 38% identify with the Republican Party. In 2005, as recent elections prove, the number of Republicans is at least equal to the number of Democrats. So the Post/ABC poll is skewed with an over-sampling of Democrats by no less than nine points.

Washington Post/ABC News did not even use the word "filibuster" in their survey question and they implied in it that only Republicans, not the full Senate, would confirm nominees. Here is the specific language, "Would you support or oppose changing the Senate rules to make it easier for the Republicans to confirm Bush's judicial nominees?" Some survey respondents easily could have confused that question and thought it meant the rules would be changed to allow Republicans alone to vote on nominees. No one supports that. Such a poorly worded question in a national poll by major news organizations (who should and do know better) can only lead to suspicion that confusion caused by it was intentional.

The Post/ABC poll is also contradicted by an April 22 Rasmussen Report that shows Americans favor (by 56% to 26%) changing the rules of the Senate to allow a full floor vote on each of the President’s nominees. So much for the absurd notion that a majority of Americans support Democrats who have taken up the filibuster to prevent the Senate from doing its duty. Mr. Gore and Moveon.org notwithstanding, the only poll that counts is the one taken on Election Day, and liberals lose that one pretty regularly. This is why they want federal courts that will continue imposing their left-wing ideology on America, because Democrats cannot do it by winning majorities at the voting booth.

It’s time to get judges who will help fix runaway courts. After all, elections do matter, and Republicans are fully justified in banning the filibuster on judicial nominees. 


"Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact."

Dave Franklin works in telecommunications and has over ten years of experience as a technology consultant for government agencies, including the Department of State and the Joint Staff. He is a regular columnist for Ether Zone.

Dave Franklin can be reached at: dfrankli@patriot.net

Published in the April 29, 2005 issue of  Ether Zone.
Copyright © 1997 - 2005 Ether Zone.

We invite your comments on this article in our forum!