 |
|
|
Radical Senate Liberals Trample Constitution Judicial Watch Pursues Historic Lawsuit A determined minority of liberal Senators has hijacked the judicial confirmation process. They refuse to allow votes on many of President Bush's judicial nominees, not because the candidates are unqualified, but rather because Senate liberals are philosophically opposed to any judicial nominee who refuses to push their radical pro-abortion agenda in the courts. This shameless attempt to "play politics" with the confirmation process not only worsens the judicial vacancy crisis, but it is also in direct violation of the Constitution. Judicial Watch filed an historic lawsuit against the Senate to force them to comply with the law. "For two hundred years Senators have managed to put aside partisanship and follow the U.S. Constitution when it comes to judicial nominees," said JW President Tom Fitton. "Now, a handful of Senate radicals are subverting the Constitution in order to serve their extreme and unpopular agenda. This desperate tactic is dangerous and illegal, and it must be stopped." The law is clear with respect to the Senate's role in the judicial confirmation process. Article II of the Constitution provides: The President "shall nominate, and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint…Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States." In other words, the President nominates candidates and then the Senate votes up or down in a timely manner. A simple majority is needed to confirm. Senate liberals, however, are preventing votes on President Bush's nominees by refusing to end the debate phase of the nomination process - a tactic known as filibustering. Since 60 votes are required to end the filibuster, these Senators have, for the first time in history, unconstitutionally imposed a "super majority" qualification to the Constitution's advise and consent clause. On October 21, Judicial Watch filed an important motion in support of its lawsuit, asking the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to declare Senate Rules XXII and V - those that require a vote of at least 60 senators to stop a filibuster - unconstitutional when applied to judicial nominees. "The purpose of Judicial Watch's lawsuit against the Senate is to prevent any politician from flouting the law and thwarting the will of the Founding Fathers," said Fitton. "Few question the qualifications of the fine candidates nominated by the President. They deserve a vote." Judges Priscilla Owen, William Pryor, Carolyn Kuhl, Charles Pickering, Henry Saad, and Janice Brown - to name a few of the President's nominees - have all received accolades for their legal integrity and professionalism. All have enough votes - both Democrat and Republican - to be confirmed in a straight up or down vote on the Senate floor. Yet all are on the hit list of liberal Senators who have promised to block their nominations, just as they did with Miguel Estrada, who recently withdrew his name from consideration after waiting 28 months to get his vote. Mr. Estrada was nominated to fill a position on the court that has been vacant since 1999. "Judicial Watch is second only to the United States government when it comes to lawsuits pending in the D.C. courts," explained Fitton. "This vacancy crisis impacts us and our clients in a very personal way. We will do everything in our power and within the law to put an end to the political games being played by Senate liberals." |
