Tuesday, March 01, 2005
Senators Frist and Reid
March 1, 2005: Today I watched the TV interview of Senator Frist, the Majority Leader of the Senate, on the local PBS station. The interviewer, Jim Lehrer, pointed out that the program had aired an interview with Senator Reid a week earlier. I tried to compare the two men and contrast what they said and compare what they said with my own opinions. Naturally, Senator Frist's remarks are fresh in my mind. My recollection of what Senator Reid said may be faulty.
The big controversy at the moment are the judge nominations that President Bush has sent to the Senate. Included are several that were rejected last year. Actually, they were not exactly rejected or voted down. The Democrats filibustered against them so they never came to a vote by the full Senate.
Senator Frist complained about the tactics of the Democrats. He argued that the duty of the Senate is to give its advice and consent to the President regarding judicial nominations. How, he asked, could the Senate fulfill its constitutional obligation if the opposition party conducted a filibuster to prevent a vote?
In his interview a week ago, Senator Reid (Harry Reid of Nevada, the Minority Leader in the Senate) said that the Senate last year had approved nearly all of Bush's judicial nominations. A few were filibustered because the Democrats were convinced they were too far to the right out of the mainstream of American political and judicial thought.
There is no doubt that Mr. Bush intends to pack the federal judiciary with judges that share his conservative Christian values. Should the President have such power? Presidents are here for no more than eight years. Senators and Representatives come and go. Judges hold their positions for life. According to the federal constitution, it requires only a President and 51 Senators to appoint a judge. Once in office, the judge can be removed only by impeachment, a procedure that requires a majority of Representatives and two-thirds of the Senators.
Right now we are in the midst of an ultra-conservative counter-revolution. The President and a substantial bloc of Representatives and Senators favor doing away with Social Security as we have known it. The President and a majority of Senators favor packing the federal judiciary with like-thinking judges. These are judges who may some day rule, for example, that the federal government has no power to do anything about the environment. Eventually this counter-revolution will run its course and more moderate men and women will be elected to the Presidency, to the Senate, and to the House of Representatives. This more moderate or centrist group will have to deal with a Supreme Court dominated by ultra-conservatives as well as an ultra-conservative federal judiciary.
Finally, what's it to me? I may not live to see the end of the ultra-conservative reign. A new generation of progressives will have to deal with the ultra-conservative vestiges in the form of a Supreme Court and other federal judges who resist progressive changes. That's their problem and I can only wish them success in dealing with it. It also occurs to me that the present situation that I complain about is brought about by the constitution itself. The framers wanted a government that wouldn't do anything rash. They cleverly constructed a scheme that would make any kind of change difficult to achieve.
The big controversy at the moment are the judge nominations that President Bush has sent to the Senate. Included are several that were rejected last year. Actually, they were not exactly rejected or voted down. The Democrats filibustered against them so they never came to a vote by the full Senate.
Senator Frist complained about the tactics of the Democrats. He argued that the duty of the Senate is to give its advice and consent to the President regarding judicial nominations. How, he asked, could the Senate fulfill its constitutional obligation if the opposition party conducted a filibuster to prevent a vote?
In his interview a week ago, Senator Reid (Harry Reid of Nevada, the Minority Leader in the Senate) said that the Senate last year had approved nearly all of Bush's judicial nominations. A few were filibustered because the Democrats were convinced they were too far to the right out of the mainstream of American political and judicial thought.
There is no doubt that Mr. Bush intends to pack the federal judiciary with judges that share his conservative Christian values. Should the President have such power? Presidents are here for no more than eight years. Senators and Representatives come and go. Judges hold their positions for life. According to the federal constitution, it requires only a President and 51 Senators to appoint a judge. Once in office, the judge can be removed only by impeachment, a procedure that requires a majority of Representatives and two-thirds of the Senators.
Right now we are in the midst of an ultra-conservative counter-revolution. The President and a substantial bloc of Representatives and Senators favor doing away with Social Security as we have known it. The President and a majority of Senators favor packing the federal judiciary with like-thinking judges. These are judges who may some day rule, for example, that the federal government has no power to do anything about the environment. Eventually this counter-revolution will run its course and more moderate men and women will be elected to the Presidency, to the Senate, and to the House of Representatives. This more moderate or centrist group will have to deal with a Supreme Court dominated by ultra-conservatives as well as an ultra-conservative federal judiciary.
Finally, what's it to me? I may not live to see the end of the ultra-conservative reign. A new generation of progressives will have to deal with the ultra-conservative vestiges in the form of a Supreme Court and other federal judges who resist progressive changes. That's their problem and I can only wish them success in dealing with it. It also occurs to me that the present situation that I complain about is brought about by the constitution itself. The framers wanted a government that wouldn't do anything rash. They cleverly constructed a scheme that would make any kind of change difficult to achieve.
