WHY NOT NOW?
Thu, 09/08/2005 - 8:40am
Today, lacking a voter and a congressional majority, the liberals have not the constitutional means to either create or support legislation. The previous administration made judicial appointments at will, objections being far and few between. Upon taking office, President Bush’s appointments were blocked.
For the past four years, Schumer has crusaded to give ideology — a nominee's personal or political views — a more open role in confirmation grilling. He has been "especially good" at articulating the stakes in the Supreme Court fight as an "extraordinary battle between competing and radically different judicial philosophies," said Ralph Neas, president of People for the American Way, one of the liberal groups opposed to Roberts. - The Journal News
Our judicial system often turns a blind eye to our Constitution, making decisions and consequently setting precedent outside of voter acquiescence. Mr. Schumer is not interested in Judge Roberts’ legal capabilities, he desires only to expose personal ideologies. Unlike Judge Ginsburg, he permitted her the opportunity to bypass questions which she felt "exposed prejudice".
"In our view, we have been thwarted from fulfilling our constitutional obligation." - Sen. Daschle
Mr. Daschle is quoted here supporting his reasoning as to why Mr. Estrada deserved to be filibustered, he refused to respond to the personal questions posed.
President Bush was forced to appoint Mr. Bolton and other examples exist. Unless action is taken, this will not end.
Prior to this administration, when has the Senate blocked presidential judicial appointments? Where in our Constitution does it allow for majority voting for Congress other than: impeachment, adoption of treaties, overriding vetoes, amending the Constitution, or expelling Senate members?
The nomination rejection fire has been burning since President Bush took office. We continue to burn out on each new candidate without America taking notice. Why not make the fire roar? Announce selection number two during the "Roberts hearings".
