More Judge thoughts...

I thought I would add a little more on the filibuster issue.

First, as I noted once before, I believe that if judges were more mindful of the limitations on their power, this might be less of an issue. There is an interesting piece on the Fox News website that posits that there is no such thing as an activist judge.

I disagree with that suggestion. In my opinion, there are judges with agendas, and they decide cases in accordance with those agendas, not necessarily in accordance with the law. To me, if a court consistently looks outside of the jurisdiction in which it operates to find legal authority it 'likes' as opposed to the authority that exists within its own jurisdiction, that is an activist court. If a court consistently overrules lines of case authority to 'update' a jurisdiction's laws, or to 'bring them in line' with others, that is a sign of an activist court. If a court finds 'new' rights within a document that has existed and has been interpreted for hundreds of years, that is an activist court.

Also in the Fox piece, their legal analyst, Andrew Napolitano pointed out the following difference between activist judges on the left and right:

To conservatives, activist judges are those who permit or compel activity in which the opinion of the conservatives can only be done in the legislative branch," he said. "To liberals, activist judges are judges who prevent the government from doing things that the Legislature wants to do.

I think Napolitano might be correct as far as labeling goes. But I do not believe it is fair to say that a conservative judge, who insists on recognizing the legislature as an equal player in the game of governance, can fairly be characterized as 'activist.' Likewise, an overriding willingness to follow previous cases, cannot be considered 'activist' either.

Next, if you weren't cynical enough before, the Washington Times reports that many Democrat Senators were operating from a playbook generated by the desires of special interest groups. These Senators have abdicated their duties to their constituencies, choosing instead to pander to "outside groups" who can provide them publicity, prestige, and money. Is this the true "Shadow Government?"

I assume that the GOP finds itself manipulated by similar groups on the right. So much for lofty values.

I also seem to recall a similar hubbub about Pres. Clinton's nominees. Further checking, though, reveals his was not a filibuster issue. For the most part, Clinton's nominees never got out of committee, an act that would have required a mere majority vote. Pres. Clinton faced a Republican Congress. (Of course, the GOP can expect similar problems if and when we have a Democrat President and Democrat Congress.)

I think a fair distinction can be drawn between a majority party voting their consciences and a minority party preventing a vote. In other words, if a particular GOP Senator is voting on a Democrat nominated judge candidate, I would expect that Senator to vote like a Republican, i.e., against an overly liberal judge. That is the fact you face when you are in the minority. On the other hand, when you are in the minority, you can vote your conscience, but using a filibuster, which has been rarely used on judicial nominations, to prevent even a vote exceeds the role of the loyal opposition. It is obstructionist. The minority is just that: the minority. Act like it.

How harmful can it be to let all of our elected Senators actually vote on these nominations?