home

Injustice Sunday

By Jeralyn, Section Other Politics
Posted on Sun Apr 24, 2005 at 11:25:39 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The Lexington Herald Leader has this editorial on Injustice Sunday, opining that the "Radical right's anti-filibuster show [is] an assault on truth."

It's great to see a MSM publication avoid the use of the phrase "Christian right." There's nothing Christian about them. They are radicals, pure and simple.

Today, if all goes as planned, Kentucky will play host to a well-scripted immorality play in which political and religious extremists pummel truth beyond recognition and twist Christianity into an ugly caricature of itself in their crusade to give Dubya the opportunity to perform an extreme makeover on the federal courts, packing their benches with enough "faith first, law last" judges to tilt our legal system dangerously toward the model of the Spanish Inquisition.

On the remarks Dobson and Frist will make:

Such inflammatory remarks, uttered with reckless disregard for the violence they might incite against judges, tell me all I need to know about how far out on the fringe these zealots reside.

Only extremists would slobber so rabidly over the prospect of undoing 200 years of Senate tradition. True conservatives wouldn't rush so hastily to change the rules of the game in that chamber.

The editorial reminds the radical right that one day the pendulum will swing back...without the filibuster, they'll be out of luck and out of the game. [link via Buzzflash.]

< 'Round the Bloggerhood | Mob Cop's Son Talks About His Dad >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Injustice Sunday | 7 comments (7 topical)
    Re: Injustice Sunday (none / 0) (#1)
    by BigTex on Sun Apr 24, 2005 at 12:37:17 PM EST
    This is an issue the Court needs to take up. The Senate can do what it likes in regards to Senate rules so long as they are constitutional. Three aerguments can be made regarding the fillibuster and the Advise and Consent role of the Senate. 1) They have a duty to vote on nominees, but the Comstitution has no direct bearing other than calling a vote so the Senate allowed to make whatever local rules it wants. 2) Advise and consent means 50% + 1 is consent, therefore a fillibuster on an advise and consent issue is unconstitutional since that requires more than consent. 3) Advise and Consent is magic verbiage that is only used for the most important of appointed positions, therefore following the meaning of advise and consent means do not stifle the debate, and eliminating the fillibuster is unconstitutional. With any luck the issue will go before the court to determine what the correct meaning of the phrase is.

    Re: Injustice Sunday (none / 0) (#2)
    by Pete Guither on Sun Apr 24, 2005 at 12:47:51 PM EST
    Big Tex, Are you kidding? The Court won't even come close to this one. They'd drop it like a hot rock. (Just what they need right now -- to be seen meddling with the inner workings of the Senate.) It's got to come out of the will of the people, and I don't think it's so much a matter of the meaning of the phrase "advise and consent," but rather the overall role of the Senate as the deliberative body (the brakes) as opposed to the House as the populist body (majority rule). The filibuster is part of that role (as opposed to being a direct part of the judicial voting process). Look at the polls -- people like divided government. They like it when one party isn't given free reign (they don't really trust either of them completely). That message will get to the Senate -- if not now, in 2006.

    Re: Injustice Sunday (none / 0) (#3)
    by roy on Sun Apr 24, 2005 at 12:57:13 PM EST
    I'm not worried. Keeling expects the Spanish Inquisition. No one expects the Spanish Inquisition. Therefore, Keeling must be mistaken.

    Re: Injustice Sunday (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 24, 2005 at 01:13:26 PM EST
    Yeah, it'd be great for the Court to pick up the Senate filibuster issue. I mean, the radical right in the Senate respects judges so much, I'm sure they'd respect the Supreme Court's ruling in regard to Senate rule changes. After all, there's no way that they would point to the Court's involvment as meddling in the Senate's business, an example of liberal activism, and a good reason why they need to appoint even more conservative judges. Wonderful idea, Bigtex.

    Re: Injustice Sunday (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 24, 2005 at 01:17:54 PM EST
    Tex, Actually, there is nothing "magical" about the verbiage. There is a clear semi-colon between the first advise and consent clause, which specifies the requirement that two-thirds of the senators present (not two-thirds of the senate) consent to treaties, and the second advise and consent clause, which merely states that the president appoints ambassadors, consuls, and judges with the advice and consent of the senate (no specific number of senators consenting is stated, implying that a mere majority is sufficient). I believe it was this "verbiage" which Robert Byrd was referring to last month when he said that there is in fact no requirement for a vote of any kind on judges, and that 51 senators could simply sign a letter to the president granting their consent and the constitutional requirements would be met. (Although, there is in fact no requirement for a vote on treaties either, only a specified number of senators consenting, which means that treaties could also be approved with something other than a vote as long as the proper percentage was consenting.) I'm not a fan of doing away with the filibuster (doing so seems incredibly short-sighted), and there seems to be no need to do so at all given that no vote is required in the first place (meaning that if the Republicans simply want to avoid a filibuster on this, they have a better option that both allows these judges to be confirmed and retains the filibuster for possible future use when it is truly called for again. But I doubt very much that Frist or anyone else on the Republican side has the intelligence, let alone will, to see this out in this way. On the other hand, this is wonderful lesson in politics and will, most likely, result in an opportunity for the Democrats to show their true colors. For if, as suspected, Frist moves to do away with the filibuster, doing so will probably cost the Republicans control of the Senate, if not in 2006 than almost certainly in 2008 when the Democrats will have Hillary's coat-tails to help them. When that happens, the Democrats will then be in a position to reinstate the filibuster for use by the new minority. Will they do it? Don't hold your breath. Robert Byrd himself worked the system to change the Senate rules several times when he was majority leader back in the 70s, and it's doubtful that he or any other Democrat would do anything but use Frist's stupidity as a precedent for doing so again. Then again, one can always hope.

    Re: Injustice Sunday (none / 0) (#6)
    by cp on Sun Apr 24, 2005 at 06:28:57 PM EST
    strangely enough, the "spanish inquisition" analogy was the first thing that went through my mind, when i learned of sen. frist's involvement in this non-christian spectacle. i'm not sure if that's a good or bad thing, but it does speak to the legitimate concerns raised by this event. for a senator or representative to even suggest that religious beliefs should play any part whatever in judicial appointments is bad enough. for a senator or representative to actually appear, albeit on tape, at a function designed to promote that viewpoint, is scandalous. i think sen. frist is shooting himself, in his presidential aspirations feet, with this appearance, and his borderline malpractice during the terri shiavo situation. couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

    Re: Injustice Sunday (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 24, 2005 at 11:06:46 PM EST
    "Hey people", Big Tex is right on the money. But it will never happen, and in the end we will just live in a third world idea, and a third world justice system. in other words Hell.

    Injustice Sunday | 7 comments (7 topical)