Wednesday, April 20, 2005

God forbid they be consistent

On the topic of stalled judicial nominations, let's listen to the wisdom of New York Senator Charles Schumer (D):

"I also plead with my colleagues to move judges with alacrity -- vote them up or down. But this delay makes a mockery of the Constitution, makes a mockery of the fact that we are here working, and makes a mockery of the lives of very sincere people who have put themselves forward to be judges and then they hang out there in limbo."

Wow! I hadn't realized that Mr. Schumer supported an end to the Democrats' obstructionist tactics.

Unfortunately, consistency of principle is not Mr. Schumer's strong suit. He spoke these words about stalled Clinton nominees.

Well, they say payback's a bitch. I can only hope that Senator Frist and the rest of the Republicans in Congress can effect a rules change so that no president of any party will have to have his choices for the federal benches blocked on strictly ideological grounds.

4 comments:

greatpix said...

Unfortunately ALL appointments, regardless of the post, are ideological. It has been thus since the first Federal Dogcatcher was appointed back in the end of the 1700's.
As devisive as the current political atmosphere is now, it pales in comparison to the situation that existed under Thomas Jefferson.
As to the appointment of judges, I am sick and tired of hearing about liberal and/or conservative judges.
A judge, in theory, rules on matters of law, as the law stands, without their personal bias,predjudices or beliefs infecting their decision, and damn to hell any hack who can't.
Judges don't MAKE laws, they interpret them, and Congress is not supposed to interpret laws, their job is to make them.
Why does everyone have such a tough time understanding this?
If the ultra-right and liberal left doesn't like that arrangement then hold a new Constitutional Convention and re-write the thing.
Better yet, dissolve the union and create two countries through partition the way the country of Pakistan was created. Of course, then everybody will be squabbling over who gets what and we can eventually have our own Kashmir. That should brighten up everybody's day.

Alain DeWitt said...

As always, you make good points.

You are, of course, correct that judges don't MAKE laws, they interpret them. Unfortunately, I think some judges didn't get the memo.

How else do you explain the fabrication of a "right to privacy" out of whole cloth? Or using that non-existent right to further determine a right to sodomy or gay marriage exists?

A lot of people, myself included, are sick of such jurists. We want judges who will read the Constitution and determine whether or not a law is consitutional and not depend on what the International Criminal Court or the High Court of Jamaica says.

greatpix said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
greatpix said...

I was remiss, when making my comment about Congress making the law in not including the other ways laws are made.
Question: When is NOT a law, a law?
Answer: When it is a Code or Regulation. These gifts to better ensure orderly lives are written by bureaucrats not elected by anybody; have the full force and effect of a law (including penalties) and are, in fact, some of our most noxious laws.
Question: When is a court a star chamber?
Answer: When it is created outside the Constitution specifically for the purpose of doing an end-run around that document. To wit: the Tax Court where persons or businesses may go to receive specific exemptions, applicable only to them, from tax laws (which are Codes, incidentally). Or, (my favorite), the special court that the FBI goes to get secret warrants out of the light of day.
Question: when are NOT judges, judges?
Answer: When they are Federal Commissioners. Most people don’t even know they exist, let alone what they do, which is basically to act like a judge and make rulings applying appropriate Federal statutes to local issues. They have enormous power, yet never come into the public eye. It is probably the best job in the entire judiciary.
I apologize for the convoluted syntax in forming my questions, but it was obviously for effect.
Lastly, noncarborundum illegitmi. LOL.