By Michael Reagan
May 10, 2005
That's what it is all about. In the long run it has nothing to do with preserving the ability of the minority to use the filibuster to prevent up-or-down votes on judicial nominees, and everything to do with the character of the nominees themselves.
Filibuster Ban Test Site
©RJ Matson, Roll Call
I give you the case of Janice Rogers Brown, a highly qualified black member of the California Supreme Court, nominated by the president to serve on U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia.
The Democrats have singled out Judge Brown and Judge Priscilla Owen, a Texas jurist as two of the judges they want to keep off the federal bench. They are the current targets of the liberals because their confirmations have been recommended by the Senate Judiciary Committee and now await action on the Senate floor.
There are eight other nominees yet to clear the Judiciary Committee who the Democrats had blocked in the past and plan to block again if they can preserve the filibuster on judicial nominations, but judges Brown and Owen are the immediate targets. Get them and they'll get the rest.
Judge Owen infuriated Democrats because as a Texas judge she dared to interpret the state law to mean that a 14-year-old girl needed parental consent to have an abortion. Abortion, of course, is a holy sacrament to the Democrats whose obeisance to the abortion industry and its billions outweighs any devotion to the preservation of human life at any stage.
So Owen must be blocked.
In the case of Judge Brown, in addition to the Democrats, there is a whole array of leftist groups opposed to Judge Brown, the badly misnamed People for the American Way (PAW), the National Women's Law Center, NARAL- Pro-Choice America, the Feminist Majority, the Aryan Nation etc.
As Ann Coulter has reported, PAW'S website contains a lengthy diatribe about Brown's nightmarish extremism "while managing never, ever to give one specific example. This is what we get by way of explanation on the horror show that is Janice Rogers Brown."
Coulter added that Brown is accused of "ideological extremism," "aggressive judicial activism," of being "even further to the right than the most far-right justices."
She is alleged, Ann wrote, to be "prone to inserting conservative political views into her appellate opinions," "a disturbing tendency to try to remake the law," "extreme state's rights and anti-federal government positions," "working to push the law far to the right."
About the only thing they left out was what I am sure these people are thinking - "doesn't hate America and all that America stands for."
All of the above is mere rhetoric. No details are provided to back up these charges.
The plain fact of the matter is that if liberals could win in the court of public opinion they wouldn't need to have activist judges who usurp the functions of the legislative branch to legislate from the bench and give them what they want. But they can't win that battle.
The reason why the Democrats and their allies refuse to elaborate on what they mean when they say "extreme rightwing ideologue" is that they need liberal judges to give them gay marriage, godless pledges of allegiance, abortion on demand, nude dancing and every other liberal outrage they want to foist on the American people.
In their view, "right-wing extremism" is opposition to such decadence, which is why they can't be specific as to what they really object to.
It's time to go nuclear, Senator
Look for Mike's new book "Twice Adopted".
All Rights Reserved.
Distributed exclusively by Cagle, Inc. www.caglecartoons.com
to subscribers for publication.