I have been quiet about the Senate talkathon because there have been other things on my mind lately. However… MeanDean decided to reference me in his cache on the sitch, which is a sign that I should probably be itchin’for a fight. So… LIVE FROM THE PUNDIT SECTION OF JEN’S PSYCHE,HEEEEEEEEEEERE’S JEN’S TAKE!!!!!
[MANAGEMENT DISCLAIMER: These views are Jen’s and may not necessarily be the views of whatever site links to them, especially if it’s a link being fisked. We welcome constructive criticism as long as it is civilly put. Any hatemail can be sent here. Threats against me, my husband, my cats, or my firstborn child will cause some heavy I.P. banning and your email address being given to the nice folks at Spamorama.Com. That is all.]
I think that the Republicans need to stop their whining and accept that the government is working the way it should. Our three branches of government operate on a system of checks and balances which keep one branch from having too much authority. This is why the Senate confirms nominees, the President has veto power on what is passed in the Senate, and the Supreme Court can strike down laws it finds to be unconstitutional. To answer the accusations that it’s bad politics, I’d like to remind the Republicans that they are calling the kettle black. They did this to quite a few of Clinton’s nominees. As for the ludicrous assertions that this shows the Democrats to be anti-women and anti-minority, many of the Clinton nominees shot down by the Republicans were also women and minorities.
I will also OPENLY and HONESTLY admit that I have been part of the effort to keep these people from being nominated. I have emailed/faxed my senators (who, in my not-so-humble opinion, should not be re-elected and have heaped much shame upon themselves for supporting these nominees) and the Senate judiciary committee to not confirm these nominees. Why am I so against these nominees? Well…
Miguel Estrada: His judicial integrity was compromised in my eyes by his failure to answer questions on how he views civil rights, abortion rights, and women’s rights. How can people honestly expect to get a fair trial from someone who hides the basis for their decisions??? I was really disappointed because I’d love to see more minorities on the bench.
The others are all anti-abortion and I feel that they were nominated simply for that reason. Bush has LONG been trying to overturn Roe v. Wade and he actually re-nominated some of these people when their nominations were overturned. THAT is dirty politics. It’s an attitude of “I-will-get-my-way-no-matter-what” and even Clinton didn’t resort to that.I am fine with them having their convictions — I just do not think that they can divorce their convictions from their judicial duties and that prevents the judicial ideal: “justice for all”. If anyone can show me differently with those people, go right ahead and send me your source. (Mine are TrueMajority and Million4Roe.)
Among the other reasons I don’t want these people on federal benches:
Janice Rogers Brown: She would protect racist and sexist speech in the work place under the First Amendment. Sorry… calling someone a “nigger”, “wetback”, “b*tch*”, or making racist or sexist statements is not something that should be tolerated. Sexual harassment is a reality and I’m not protecting a crime by declaring it to be free speech.
Carolyn Kuhl: She supported tax-exempt status for Bob Jones University, who should not be tax-exempt. They aren’t a non-profit organization or a ministry — they make money. I admit that I’m not an expert on tax laws for private schools, but I don’t think Bojo deserves special treatment. They don’t admit everyone who applies regardless of race, religion, gender, or orientation by choice and they can support themselves with money from like-minded people and pay taxes on said money.
Priscilla Owen: She is considered one of the most pro-business/anti-worker judges on the Texas Supreme Court. Do I really want her trying a dispute between me and my company when my company is doing me wrong? (This would be stuff like unlawful termination, denying me benefits for no legit reason, illegal practices on the part of the company that cause me to lose my pension…)
Charles Pickering: He attempted to reduce the sentence of a convicted cross burner. Do I really want a judge who is pro-racist? I think not! He is opposed to the Equal Rights Amendment, which means that I am not an equal citizen in his eyes because I’m female.
William Pryor: He is a leading figure in the “states’ rights” movement which advocates protecting states from claims of discrimination. States do not have a right to discriminate against minorities. Again, this means that “justice for all” is not going to happen.
I would also like to remind people that of the 172 nominees brought before the Senate, 168 (97.7%) of them have been confirmed. The Republicans are nitpicking over 4 people (2.3%). This doesn’t look like dirty politics to me. This looks like people voting their conscience and trying to keep the
courts free of people with extreme views. I’m not against people being anti-abortion — I just want them to enforce the laws of the land and not try to promote their agendas. Attorney General Ashcroft is very anti-abortion but he has (excluding the stupidity in Detroit in December 2001 regarding the Patriot Act) kept his promise to uphold the existing laws regardless of how he feels.
Some may say that I’m anti-Republican because I’m criticizing them. Uh yeah… I vote for both Democrats AND Republicans so that charge is baseless. Some would say that I’m criticizing this because I hate Bush. I do hate Bush but I am also perfectly willing to call a spade a spade regardless of who the guilty party is. I’m criticizing this because I think that the talkathon was dirty politics on the part of the Republicans and I think that we need to look at the reason WHY the nominees aren’t being confirmed. If Bush wants to send some nominees with normal politics, I’ll support that. I will not, however, support the court-stacking in which he is engaging. It undermines the system of checks and balances in place and makes a mockery of the government our forefathers intended us to have.
Good stuff Jen! Glad you caught the note in the playful spirit in which it was intended.
You mention some good points. Personally? I just wish both sides would quit sqawkling and put these candidates to a vote. It’s the Constitutional thing to do.
I’m always nice to those who warn me about assassination plots on liberals. 🙂
Ditto on the put them to the vote thang. And if they don’t make it, find someone else to nominate.
the fact that it’s only FOUR of the nominees being turned down…gah! shut up republicans!!!!! you cannot say that it is just anti-Bush!!! it makes no sense!!!
Crystal, it’s not about being turned down … it’s about not voting on them at all. Like’m or hate’m, it is as unfair to the candidate as it is to the constiuency at large.
Vote on’m. If they pass, then democracy works. If they don’t pass, then democracy works. If they don’t vote, then it’s only going to get worse.
Just saying “the other side did it too” doesn’t make it right.
Is it your opinion that the Democrats’ filibuster of the these court nominee’s votes is an apporpriate exercise of democracy? Or not?
If yes, then Republicans’ fulibuster of Clinton nominees was also appropriate exercise of democracy. And it’s not the pot calling the kettle black at all. Cause both sides are/were in the right. Though if the Democrats have the right to filibuster, the Republicans should also have the right to try to stop the filibuster…as both would, in this view, be an appropriate exercise of democracy.
If not, then, regardless of how one feels about these particular nominees, they should just vote and get it over with…
I’m not complaining about the filibuster or the fact that the Republicans didn’t confirm Clinton nominees. I’m kvetching about the attitude that has been taken by some vocal Republicans that the Democrats are evil and are engaging in bad politics. Yes, the Democrats are filibustering the nominees — it’s legal to do in the Senate and these nominees pose conscience problems for the Dems if they are confirmed. However, the Republicans complaining about it and calling the Democrats bad is what I meant by the pot calling the kettle black. They engaged in the same behavior during the first term of Clinton.
The reason I doubt it will be put to a vote is that the Dems know that they don’t have the numbers to win (I think it is a simple majority) but… they also really do not agree with the nominee’s politics or the fact that Bush re-nominated a few after they were voted down. I think the re-nomination is in bad taste — it undermines the checks and balances that keep our government stable.
yup, mean dean, they should definitely be voted upon!
oh and the re-nominating thing seems fishy.
Does it mean anything at all that each of these candidates (as far as I’ve discerned) have received a qualified rating by the ABA? What about the Democrats complaints about Republican tactics? Are those also in bad taste?
As for Bob Jones’ admissions policies, while I am not a huge fan of BJU, orientation is not a protected class under any federal law! This is at least the 3rd or 4th time in the past couple of months I’ve had to mention this. Title VII of the CRA protects: race, religion, nation of origin, sex (not orientation!), and color. Veteran’s status, age, and pregnancy are other protected classes based on other laws.
Finally, we “anti-abortion” folks prefer the term pro-life because generally we also stand against euthanasia (as do some pro-choicers). I call the other side “pro-choice” and not “pro-death” or “pro-abortion.” Anyway, 30 years ago the judiciary flexed their muscles to force all states to legalize abortion which was against “the laws of the land” and promoted their “agenda.” If you’re calling for consistency, please be consistent.
Firstly, to be judges, they have to have the ABA nod — it basically just gives them the right to practice law and means that they haven’t done anything unethical to lose it.
Secondly, my point with BJU is that they do not admit just everyone — they admit only their own kind. As such, they aren’t eligible for federal tax breaks because I don’t think they’re eligible for funds other than work study (if they even have that). Seminaries operate similarly — we can’t get federal funds.
Thirdly, I say “anti-abortion” because I have yet to see any of these judges come out against the death penalty or euthanasia. I’m pro-life but pro-legal in that I respect the right for abortion to exist because I know that making it illegal will not stop it from happening. It existed before Roe v. Wade was decided and it killed countless women in addition to the children. I don’t oppose limits on abortion but I’d also like to know that the judge deciding the case is not going to decide based on their agenda.
As far as being consistent on the accusations of bad tactics on each side, I tend to go with the Democrats on this. It’s not because I’m a Democrat but because I saw the Republicans do the same thing to Clinton’s nominees when I was in middle school. In other words, they themselves engaged in the same politics as the Democrats are doing now and the Democrats didn’t raise as much of a stink about it. (At least, I’m pretty sure they didn’t — it’s been 10 years.) That’s why I said that the Republicans were calling the kettle black.
The Democrats are within their rights though I really despise the fact that all of this is happening. The government has other things to do besides squabbling over nominees.
Just for the record, BJU isn’t tax- exempt and hasn’t been since 1982. And it does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national or ethnic origin in its administration of its educational policies, admissions policies, scholarship and loan programs, and athletic and other school-administered programs.
BJU does not however admit everyone who applies because part of the criteria is that one has to be Christian. I have also been told that bi-racial students have a harder time getting in.
I don’t think any school admits everyone who applies. It’s kind of like Harvard admits really smart people. And medical schools admit people who are good in science. Most schools have certain criteria by which they select their students. There are non-Christians in the BJU student body, just as there are on most church membership rolls. Some become Christians while they are students. You’re right, though, that the intention of BJU is to educate Christians. To me, that’s what a Christian college is.
And I’ve also known a number of biracial students who’ve been admitted. Applicants are not discriminated against on the basis of race, period.