PRESIDENT Bush is once again attempting to appoint far right-wing judicial nominees to American courtrooms. Abusing the now larger Republican majority to increase the chances for approval of radical judges, Bush has re-nominated seven of the 10 nominees blocked by Senate Democrats last year. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., frustrated by the Democrats' refusal to surrender to Bush's extremist nominees, is threatening to stretch Senate rules to trump minority party rights by eliminating the filibuster.
All seven of the nominees were previously rejected by the Senate for falling too far outside the mainstream. Changing Senate procedure to ensure the nominees are confirmed this time would provide a temporary solution for Republicans with frightening long-term consequences. The move would end debate, eliminating the minority party's right to reflect the opinions of their constituency by opposing the confirmations.
Frist is in favor of closing the filibuster, a tactic used by the minority party to halt a nomination through unlimited debate, with 50 votes instead of the 60 that are now currently needed. Filibustering is the Democrats' main power hold for ensuring that the re-submitted nominees are not affirmed. If enacted, Frist's proposed plan would end the open debate over judicial nominees.
According to The Washington Post, Frist stated, "Filibusters can't be tolerated by the American people," and held out the possibility of changing rules to allow the forcing of cloture, the motion which ends a filibuster, with a simple majority vote. Termed the "nuclear option" by opponents, the move would end all debate over Bush's previously blocked judicial nominees.
Given that Republicans now hold 55 seats, under the proposed Senate procedural changes, Sen. Frist could afford to lose five members of his own party and still break the filibuster. Several Republican Senators, including John McCain, R-Ariz., and John Warner, R-Va., have voiced concern over the erosion of Senate procedural traditions and minority party rights.
According to The New York Times, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., stressed the need to "not divert attention from other pressing issues facing this nation to redebate the merits of nominees already found too extreme by this chamber."
Despite his concerns about the need to move on and discuss more pressing issues, Reid has made it clear that Democrats will filibuster when necessary to ensure that Bush's previously rejected nominees do not make it to the bench. Democrats are fighting strongly against these seven nominees in particular because they are so far out of the mainstream.
Terrence Boyle, one of President Bush's re-submitted nominations, has seen his rulings as a district court judge overturned an unprecedented 150 times by the conservative Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. In Ellis v. North Carolina, Boyle dismissed the case of an African-American woman who claimed employment discrimination, taking the radical position that the state employers do not have to comply with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which guarantees equal employment opportunity. The Fourth Circuit Court reversed his ruling, noting that the Supreme Court determined over 25 years earlier that state employers were not immune from Title VII provisions. He has consistently ruled against barring employment discrimination on the basis of gender, race, disability and sexual orientation.
Another re-nominated judge, former Alabama Attorney General William H. Pryor, Jr., has argued against the Violence Against Women Act, the Families and Medical Leave Act and even provisions of the Voting Rights Act.
Pryor told a rally in 1997 that on the day of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling "seven members of our highest court ripped the Constitution and ripped out the life of millions of unborn children." He also cited the ruling as "the worst abomination of Constitutional law in our history," demonstrating a clear inability to separate his personal ideology from judicial precedent and legislative duties.
California Supreme Court Associate Justice Janice Rogers Brown's nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit was also re-submitted. She is frequently the lone dissenter on the California Supreme Court due to her highly ideological views. As an illustration of the controversy surrounding her nomination, she was quoted by MSNBC as disparaging former Franklin D. Roosevelt's "New Deal" as "our socialist revolution."
Boyle, Pryor and Brown have all been previously blocked by the Senate. However, Bush has re-submitted their nominations, along with four other equally out-of-the-mainstream candidates. Sen. Frist's threat to force cloture by changing Senate procedure represents a major threat to the minority party's right to debate the capability of nominees whose ideology trumps their ability to make just decisions.
Sophia Brumby is a Cavalier Daily Viewpoint writer.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | 11 hours agoLooking beyond basketball and football reveals that Virginia Athletics is, in many ways, thriving.
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 2 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
