April 22, 2005
Government In Action or INaction?
Hugh Hewitt has certainly been following his own advice by leading the way in framing the concerns and arguments against our government inaction. The problem with the left's view of "advice and consent" is that their advice to the President is to quit his job. Something they would certainly consent to, but unfortunately for them, will not happen.
The issue isn’t about rubber-stamping anyone because I don’t believe that anyone wants our system of checks and balances to go away. The issue is about obstructing the government from doing its job. I thought there were penalties that came along with obstruction of justice? To Hugh Hewitt, those penalties are coming sooner or later, but who are they for?
Lead the Way
Senate Republicans may not understand the true stakes in the coming judicial showdown.
Thus the leaders of the left's unprecedented and extra-constitutional blockade of Bush's circuit court nominees are on record as planning to use similar tactics for any Supreme Court vacancies that arise in Bush's second term, the first of which is widely believed to be coming soon with the expected retirement of Chief Justice Rehnquist.
THE VOTE ON THE RULING ending the filibusters could wind up being the most important vote having to do with domestic politics in a generation. The GOP's continued majority hangs in the balance. But do Republican senators and strategists understand its importance?
There seems to be a great temptation among the elected to confuse what they wish to be the case with the actual facts on the ground outside of Washington. Outside of the war on terrorism, there are few issues that the base of the Republican party deem more significant than the selection and confirmation of judges. It is far more important than tax cutting, far more important than energy policy, far more important than curbing trial lawyers--because the courts ultimately play decisive roles in all of these areas, and more.
It is not acceptable to most Americans to be defined as "outside of the mainstream," and the GOP is defending much more than its judicial nominees when it engages in this battle.
All weekend long every GOP senator should tell every newsman and constituent:
"There was exactly one refusal to close debate on [an appeals court] judicial nominee in the entire 20th century, and that was a favor to a sitting Supreme Court justice about to be embarrassed by defeat who withdrew his nomination immediately afterwards and resigned soon after because of ethics problems.
Since January, 2003, there have been 20 different refusals to close debate on judicial nominees. This disfigurement of Senate tradition, disguised as the appropriate application of a rule intended for legislative debates, must and will end."
That is it. That is all there is to the argument on the filibuster.
UPDATE:
