Irregular
appointments
Jason
Garthoffner
Last
week the Senate held a 40-hour talk-a-thon
in a Republican effort to convince the Democrats
to stop blocking President Bush's judicial
appointments. A couple of the nominees,
Janice Rogers Brown and Priscilla Owens,
have been accused of the apparent crime
of being conservative.
This
use of the filibuster of judicial nominations
on purely partisan grounds is unprecedented
in the country's history. The motivation
for Democrat's use of this is the nominees
are "out of the mainstream" of
American thought.
Priscilla
Owen's mortal sin as a justice in the Texas
Supreme Court was upholding laws requiring
parental notification of minors that get
abortions.
A
smoking gun the New York Times cites against
Janice Rogers Brown is a statement she said
in a speech (not while on the bench), that
Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal legislation
was "the triumph of our socialist revolution."
How
silly of her to think that unprecedented
programs like Social Security, which take
money from people and redistribute it to
others, is socialism (it is).
On
a side note: When the Supreme Court ruled
FDR's New Deal legislation unconstitutional
he threatened legislation allowing for more
justices on the Supreme Court. That way
he could "pack" the court with
liberal activists that would allow the legislation,
the law became unnecessary because the threat
of losing power caused the court to give
in to the New Deal. The correct way to go
about it would've been a constitutional
amendment. Apparently, subverting the Constitution
is in the mainstream.
Meanwhile
Judge "out of mainstream" Brown
has written more majority opinions than
anyone else on the California Supreme Court.
So
exactly what kind of judges do liberals
suggest Bush appoint? If ruling that minors
should be held accountable to their parents,
and calling socialist programs socialism
is "out of the mainstream," then
what is? Are the following judges considered
"in the mainstream?"
Clinton
appointed Judge Richard Paez, struck down
a Los Angeles law prohibiting homeless people
from begging at specified public places,
such as in front of ATM's. The law was in
response to a man being stabbed to death
by a homeless beggar who was refused money.
Paez said the law violated first amendment
free speech.
Another
Clinton appointee, Judge Robert Henry, deemed
it cruel and unusual punishment that sex
change hormone therapy is denied a transsexual
prisoner.
Yet
another Clinton appointed Judge Rosemary
Barkett ruled a Georgia law requiring anyone
running for political office to be drug
tested would "ensure that only candidates
with a certain point of view qualify for
public office." Thus, she found the
law in violation of free speech under the
first amendment.
One
Clinton nomination (hey, is anyone seeing
a pattern here?), Frederica A. Massiah-Jackson,
is one that thankfully never saw confirmation.
Massiah-Jackson once gave a convicted rapist
of a 10 year-old girl the statutory minimum.
She then apologized to the rapist for giving
even that much. The five year prison term
worked on the rapist so well that upon release
he was arrested again for raping a nine
year-old boy.
In
addition to this, Massiah-Jackson swore
at attorneys in her courtroom, and had a
large number of criminal cases overturned.
She even outed undercover cops in front
of criminal defendants.
Coming
under fire by the Senate Judiciary Committee
for her record she subsequently withdrew
her name from the nomination. Of course,
it would be silly to suggest her record
of spectacular incompetence had anything
to do with it, and the criticisms were totally
partisan ones.
So
we're all on the same page, if liberals
ran the world, the following would be considered
"in the mainstream" of American
thought: Convicting a rapist is a horrendous
thing to do, but a state funded sex change
for prisoners (and anyone else) is just
super.
Outing
undercover cops and swearing at attorneys
is exactly the kind of professionalism liberals
are looking for in federal judges.
Taking
drugs is free speech. Being conservative
is not free speech. Begging for money is
free speech. Passing out flyers with naked
black men is not free speech. Passing out
flyers with naked white men is free speech.
Keep
in mind the above criteria for what liberals
consider "mainstream" the next
time Democrats snivel about one of Bush's
nominees being not being part of it.
Jason
Garthoffner is an art major at Cal State
Long Beach and can be reached at JasD1899@aol.com.
|
