Obstructing Justice

[Tigermike 3,039]

Obstructing Justice

Nomination Process: Failure of all eight Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee to show up for Thursday's session shut the panel down. Now Bush's judicial picks can't get a hearing at all, much less a fair one.

Of the committee's 10 Republicans, eight were on hand to consider the appeals court nomination of Thomas Griffith. Not one Democrat could be found. Four of them, including Patrick Leahy and Ted Kennedy, were in the congressional delegation attending the funeral of Pope John Paul II.

The other four had no excuse, except the claim expressed through aides that they were unwilling to debate and vote on the nomination with senior members in Rome. Committee rules require a quorum of 10 senators, so committee Chairman Arlen Specter was forced to cancel the proceedings and reschedule.

Of course, none of the committee Democrats, here or there, has any intention of doing anything but voting against Griffith in committee and then joining a filibuster against his confirmation on the Senate floor. And opposition to Bush's nominees has nothing to do with qualifications and everything to do with ideology.

Among these nominees was Miguel Estrada, described in a Nov. 7, 2001, borderline-racist staff memo to committee member Dick Durbin, D-Ill., as "especially dangerous, because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment. They want to hold Estrada off as long as possible."

"They" are left-leaning special interest groups such as People for the American Way and the National Organization of Women.

Estrada, who had enough votes to be confirmed in the absence of a filibuster, remained in limbo for more than two years until this nominee, rated "well qualified" by the American Bar Association, gave up in frustration and withdrew his nomination for the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2003.

Imagine the media feeding frenzy if a Republican had written that a Democratic nominee was "dangerous" because he was a "Latino." Or if a Republican pledged, as Kennedy did, "to resist any Neanderthal that is nominated by this president . . . for any federal court" in the U.S.

Neanderthal? Does Kennedy consider Janice Rogers Brown, nominated to the D.C. Court of Appeals, the first black woman to sit on the California Supreme Court, re-elected with 76% of the vote, the daughter of an Alabama sharecropper, a Neanderthal?

Brown's crimes, apparently, include being (1) a staunch supporter of property rights, which she views as under assault by eminent domain abuses, (2) an articulate voice for limited government and individual freedom and (3) a black conservative.

Liberals like Kennedy and Durbin tout "diversity" and "equality," but hypocritically oppose an Hispanic because Estrada is a "dangerous Latino" and Brown because, as a Kennedy staff memo said, "We can't repeat the mistake we made with Clarence Thomas."

It's time to exercise the "nuclear option" and restore majority rule to the U.S. Senate. If Democrats in league with special interest groups want to shut that body down, voters can exercise the "Daschle" option in 2006.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/issues.asp?v=4/9