« Home | Friday Is Here, and So Are Bugs » | Abramoff the Octopus, His Tentacles Reach Everywhe... » | Bi-Partisan Conference On Iraq Called By Bush » | Interesting Times In Jerusalem (Tick Tick Tick) » | I Hate to Say I Told You So, But. . . (Iran Is Aft... » | Most Ridiculous Item of the Day » | Murtha The Patriot: Dont Join The Military Kids! » | IAEA Just Wants Iran Cooperation, Iran Just Wants ... » | Military Support For Bush and War Drop (And I Dont... » | HAPPY NEW YEAR! » 

Monday, January 09, 2006 

Dems Pushing on Alito (Will They Push Too Far?)

"I would consider that not only not an extraordinary circumstance, but a threat to the independence of the judiciary, and I would stop it in its tracks with my vote,"
Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican and one of the "Gang of 14”

This in response to the announcement that Democrats may once again raise the specter of a judicial filibuster against nominee Samuel Alito. A Ranking Democrat, Charles Schumer, of New York, said:

if Judge Alito refuses to answer questions on issues that Democrats deem vital, the party will be more likely to block the nomination. "If he continuously, given his previous record, refused to answer questions and hid behind 'I can't answer this because it might come before me,' it would increase the chances of a filibuster,"

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat shared this sentiment, and told Fox News:

she would likely block the nomination if she concludes that Judge Alito would overturn Roe v. Wade […] "If I believed he was going to go in there and overthrow Roe ... most likely 'yes,'"
[Washington Post]

I guess to get to how I feel on this one, I have to remove the “D” and “R” from the argument.

  • First, I think that Roe v/s Wade was a court decision made in 1973. It is not a part of the constitution, nor is it written law of any kind.
  • Second, the Supreme Court can only debate items that come before the court. They do not have the ability to arbitrarily take an old case up and overturn it. At most, they could instead set another precedent that would counter-balance that one.
  • Third, regardless of Roe v/s Wade, is it now supposed to be acceptable for the Congressional minority party to use a filibuster for any and all proceedings that they deem inappropriate to their cause? Is this to become common practice, that unless the minority party is placated, nothing will move through?

How does any of this serve the people? Our tax dollars pay their salary to work on legislation that is supposed to represent, serve, and protect the Constitution of the United States of America, and intrinsically, her citizenry as well. This seems more about wrestling out political control and serving their own agendas. The minority party is just that, a minority. There is a reason that we have a political system set up in this way, and it wasn’t so that the minority of represented America could stop anything they see opposed to their agenda.