Getting Political Again
Although I'm tempted to write a lengthy manifesto about the notion of "judicial tyranny" that seems so popular these days, I will limit myself to a few short statements. [Ed. Note - This now appears to be the very same lengthy manifesto I had tried to avoid. Nevertheless, I've worked damn hard in the past to make you all laugh when reading this blog, so I hope that you return the favor by hearing me out on these important issues.]
Our constitutionally established system of checks and balances mandates that each of the three branches of government act within their sphere as a check against the others. While it is the executive's job to execute the laws written by the legislature, and the legislature's job to create those laws, it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. (Greenfield: "Do you have a cite for that?" Ahh, Con Law jokes...)
To argue that a member of the judiciary is overstepping its bounds by acting to interpret the law is utterly baseless and ludicrous. I offer you Exhibit A, a bill propsed in the Senate by Senators Shelby, Brownback, and Burr called the "Constitution Restoration Act of 2005." (Text of the bill here.) The bill allows for, among other things, the impeachment of any justice or judge who interprets the Constitution of the United States "by rely[ing] upon any constitution, law, administrative rule, Executive order, directive, policy, judicial decision, or any other action of any foreign state or international organization or agency, other than English constitutional and common law up to the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States."
Let's hear that one again. It would be an impeachable offense to interpret the Constitution by relying upon precedent Supreme Court cases. Let there be no mistake about it, this is not an attempt to restore constitional order. This is an attempt to completely disable the judicial branch of the United States.
There are additional bills and constitutional amendments proposed that are designed to "protect the sanctity of marriage" (read: protect us from having to acknowledge the homos), and to "restore the Senate's ability to confirm federal judges without being hamstrung by radicals" (read: eliminate the Senate filibuster rule, which has served for centuries as a means for a minority to protect its interests in the face of a slight majority; in this case, 55-45).
This last one deserves more than passing mention. Quickly, some background. Unlike in the House of Representatives where members are limited by the Speaker of the House in the amount of time they may speak, senators may "hold the floor" for as long as they wish, so long as they are physically present in the Senate chamber and are continuing to speak. What this has resulted in is a practice of senators in extreme situations of "filibustering," meaning that a senator or group of senators speaks uninterrupted for hours, sometimes days or weeks. Under current rules, which have been in place since the 1960s, a filibuster can only be stopped by the vote of a super-majority of senators (60 out of 100). This vote is called cloture.
The current system of filibuster and cloture is actually a great exercise in democracy. It essentially means that if a bill (or judicial nominee) is particularly controversial, there has to be a very large group of senators supporting it in order for it to pass.
What this means in a more practical sense is that the bills (or judicial nominees) that are proposed and passed are most often politically moderate, for the majority must allay the concerns of the minority in order to surpass the threat of a filibuster. Without the filibuster, however, there would be no incentive for the majority (currently Republicans) to compromise with either the moderates or the minority. This would allow any majority of Senators (even a 51-49 majority) to act without any check or restraint on their own power.
There has been a strong movement in the Senate to eliminate the filibuster with respect to judicial nominees. Not surprisingly, this is supported by a number of radical conservatives and religious fundamentalists who feel that the 200-year-old tradition is getting in the way of their forcing ultra-conservative judges into the federal judiciary. Keep in mind that more than 95 percent of President Bush's judicial nominees have been approved by the Senate, and the Senate Democrats have blocked only 10 of Bush's 52 appeals court nominees. And yet, sensing the opportunity to further entrench themselves in our government, the conservatives are pushing further still.
So here's the point. There is a list of seven so-called "swing senators," Republicans that are most likely to be cool-headed about this destruction of democracy. It is essential that these senators understand the danger behind the destruction of the filibuster. If you are a constituent of one of these senators, and you understand and agree with what I've just discussed, I urge -- no, BEG -- you to please call their offices and share with them your fear of the slow destruction of American democracy. They are (including contact information):
Indiana
Sen. Dick Lugar
Website
(202) 224-4814 - Washington, DC Office
(317) 226-5555 - Indianapolis, IN Office
Maine
Sen. Susan Collins
Website
(202) 224-2523 - Washington, DC Office
(207) 780-3575 - Portland, ME Office
Sen. Olympia Snowe
Website
(202) 224-5344 - Washington, DC Office
(207) 874-0883 - Portland, ME Office
New Hampshire
Sen. John Sununu
Website
(202) 224-2841 - Washington, DC Office
(603) 430-9560 - Portsmouth, NH Office
Sen. Judd Gregg
Website
(202) 224-3324 - Washington, DC Office
(603) 225-7115 - Concord, NH Office
Nebraska
Sen. Chuck Hagel
Website
(202) 224-4224 - Washington, DC Office
(402) 476-1400 - Lincoln, NE Office
Virginia
Sen. John Warner
Website
(202) 224-2023 - Washington, DC Office
(540) 857-2676 - Roanoke, VA Office
For more information on this issue, I urge you to check out SaveTheFilibuster.com. I sincerely hope that this didn't come off as a boring political science lecture so much as a presentation of my personal fears about the direction in which the ultra-conservatives in Congress are trying to move our government.
I don't think I need to mention that the first two steps in the Nazi's rise to power were to undercut the ability of the other parties to oppose them within the rules of government, and then to destroy Germany's separation of powers.
I present to you two final links for your information:
- Germany's Enabling Act of 1933
- "Commander-in-Thief" by Sheila Samples
Ok, I'm done. Watch Arrested Development, Go Sox!
Our constitutionally established system of checks and balances mandates that each of the three branches of government act within their sphere as a check against the others. While it is the executive's job to execute the laws written by the legislature, and the legislature's job to create those laws, it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. (Greenfield: "Do you have a cite for that?" Ahh, Con Law jokes...)
To argue that a member of the judiciary is overstepping its bounds by acting to interpret the law is utterly baseless and ludicrous. I offer you Exhibit A, a bill propsed in the Senate by Senators Shelby, Brownback, and Burr called the "Constitution Restoration Act of 2005." (Text of the bill here.) The bill allows for, among other things, the impeachment of any justice or judge who interprets the Constitution of the United States "by rely[ing] upon any constitution, law, administrative rule, Executive order, directive, policy, judicial decision, or any other action of any foreign state or international organization or agency, other than English constitutional and common law up to the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States."
Let's hear that one again. It would be an impeachable offense to interpret the Constitution by relying upon precedent Supreme Court cases. Let there be no mistake about it, this is not an attempt to restore constitional order. This is an attempt to completely disable the judicial branch of the United States.
There are additional bills and constitutional amendments proposed that are designed to "protect the sanctity of marriage" (read: protect us from having to acknowledge the homos), and to "restore the Senate's ability to confirm federal judges without being hamstrung by radicals" (read: eliminate the Senate filibuster rule, which has served for centuries as a means for a minority to protect its interests in the face of a slight majority; in this case, 55-45).
This last one deserves more than passing mention. Quickly, some background. Unlike in the House of Representatives where members are limited by the Speaker of the House in the amount of time they may speak, senators may "hold the floor" for as long as they wish, so long as they are physically present in the Senate chamber and are continuing to speak. What this has resulted in is a practice of senators in extreme situations of "filibustering," meaning that a senator or group of senators speaks uninterrupted for hours, sometimes days or weeks. Under current rules, which have been in place since the 1960s, a filibuster can only be stopped by the vote of a super-majority of senators (60 out of 100). This vote is called cloture.
The current system of filibuster and cloture is actually a great exercise in democracy. It essentially means that if a bill (or judicial nominee) is particularly controversial, there has to be a very large group of senators supporting it in order for it to pass.
What this means in a more practical sense is that the bills (or judicial nominees) that are proposed and passed are most often politically moderate, for the majority must allay the concerns of the minority in order to surpass the threat of a filibuster. Without the filibuster, however, there would be no incentive for the majority (currently Republicans) to compromise with either the moderates or the minority. This would allow any majority of Senators (even a 51-49 majority) to act without any check or restraint on their own power.
There has been a strong movement in the Senate to eliminate the filibuster with respect to judicial nominees. Not surprisingly, this is supported by a number of radical conservatives and religious fundamentalists who feel that the 200-year-old tradition is getting in the way of their forcing ultra-conservative judges into the federal judiciary. Keep in mind that more than 95 percent of President Bush's judicial nominees have been approved by the Senate, and the Senate Democrats have blocked only 10 of Bush's 52 appeals court nominees. And yet, sensing the opportunity to further entrench themselves in our government, the conservatives are pushing further still.
So here's the point. There is a list of seven so-called "swing senators," Republicans that are most likely to be cool-headed about this destruction of democracy. It is essential that these senators understand the danger behind the destruction of the filibuster. If you are a constituent of one of these senators, and you understand and agree with what I've just discussed, I urge -- no, BEG -- you to please call their offices and share with them your fear of the slow destruction of American democracy. They are (including contact information):
Indiana
Sen. Dick Lugar
Website
(202) 224-4814 - Washington, DC Office
(317) 226-5555 - Indianapolis, IN Office
Maine
Sen. Susan Collins
Website
(202) 224-2523 - Washington, DC Office
(207) 780-3575 - Portland, ME Office
Sen. Olympia Snowe
Website
(202) 224-5344 - Washington, DC Office
(207) 874-0883 - Portland, ME Office
New Hampshire
Sen. John Sununu
Website
(202) 224-2841 - Washington, DC Office
(603) 430-9560 - Portsmouth, NH Office
Sen. Judd Gregg
Website
(202) 224-3324 - Washington, DC Office
(603) 225-7115 - Concord, NH Office
Nebraska
Sen. Chuck Hagel
Website
(202) 224-4224 - Washington, DC Office
(402) 476-1400 - Lincoln, NE Office
Virginia
Sen. John Warner
Website
(202) 224-2023 - Washington, DC Office
(540) 857-2676 - Roanoke, VA Office
For more information on this issue, I urge you to check out SaveTheFilibuster.com. I sincerely hope that this didn't come off as a boring political science lecture so much as a presentation of my personal fears about the direction in which the ultra-conservatives in Congress are trying to move our government.
I don't think I need to mention that the first two steps in the Nazi's rise to power were to undercut the ability of the other parties to oppose them within the rules of government, and then to destroy Germany's separation of powers.
I present to you two final links for your information:
- Germany's Enabling Act of 1933
- "Commander-in-Thief" by Sheila Samples
Ok, I'm done. Watch Arrested Development, Go Sox!
posted by mike at 6:02 PM
2 Comments:
As a right wingnut, fellow law student, acknowledger of the homos, freak for Jesus, lover of yogurt, and Kerry supporter in the last election,
I find this whole mess VERY disturbing. It's extremely interesting when super-factions start picking up steam: the whole thing starts to remind me very much of student rallies before the big game: "YEEEEEAH EAGLES ROCK EAGLES ROCK EAGLES ROCK!" The difference is that you have demagogues up in place of student body presidents; and instead of losing just a bit of dignity, people lose rights. ALso, the cheerleaders are a LOT uglier. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Question: it seems as if these politicians are more concerned about the inevitable future influence of internationally recognized laws. Is that part of their contention?
I agree, Eagles fans are obnoxious. Wait, what was your point again?
Post a Comment
<< Home