A Judiciary Out of Control

Today, a federal judge set a ten-day restraining order barring a former Oil-for-Food investigator from sharing documents with Congress. This is just the latest in an ongoing trend of questionable decisions from the federal judiciary. Whether it has been an assault on Christianity (no, not all religion, judges have nothing against any other religions), creating new "free speech" rights, deciding a 17 year old who commits a desipicable crime doesn't deserve the death penalty, but if he'd waited a few months he would, or deciding that a casual conversation with a suspected wife-abuser can condemn a woman to death against her family's wishes, decisions coming out the courts recently continue to anger conservatives all over America (oddly enough, liberals think these decisions fit within the judiciary's realm). These cases confirm the fears that have arisen in many conservatives that we have in America an out of control judiciary infested with activists who love nothing more than to "legislate from the bench."

• Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution states, "The Congress shall have Power... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
• Article III of the US Constitution states, "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."
  

If I am to understand this correctly, the sole power for creating a law lies with Congress, and if the judiciary tries to usurp this power, then Congress has the power to stop them. I, and hopefully everyone, learned in American Government that the purpose of the judiciary is to interpret the Constitution. There is no "secret purpose" that allows them to create new rights (i.e. gay marriage, abortion, pornography as free speech, etc.). If there arises a need to change the Constitution, then Congress drafts and votes on an amendment. However, judges all over the nation continue to overstep their bounds in this respect.

President Bush has made it very clear that we as a nation can no longer sit by while these activist judges continue to legislate from the bench. He has nominated a number of qualified Constitutionalist (judges who interpret the Constitution, not try to change it) judges, only to have the cream of the crop denied the right of an up-or-down vote from the Senate.

Four years and one day ago, Bush nominated Priscilla Owen, a Texas Supreme Court justice since 1994, to serve as a federal judge on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. An interesting note to help explain why Democrats don't want her to serve on this body is that the federal Courts of Appeals are the last resort for 99% of all cases brought before the federal courts. Only a very select few ever make it into the halls of the United States Supreme Court. She has been unanimously awarded the American Bar Association's highest rating of "well qualified," and in her last bid for reelection she was endorsed by EVERY major newspaper in the state. Yet somehow she remains on the nomination blocks patiently awaiting the day when the obstructionists in the Senate will finally give her an up or down vote.

Another case where the obstructionists are blocking an extremely qualified judge is in the case of Janice Rogers Brown. She grew up as the daughter of Alabama sharecroppers and went on to become the first African American woman to serve on the California Supreme Court. In 1998, she was reelected to the Court with 76% of the vote. To put this in perspective, President Bush only received 45% of the vote in California in the 2004 election. Yet somehow the Democrats in the Senate don't believe that she is qualified and deserving of a seat on the federal bench.

In response, leading Senate Republicans have proposed using what has become known as the "nuclear option." This would remove the supermajority requirement to break up a filibuster and make it possible for all judges to receive an up or down vote. However, the Democrats are very much angered by this proposition and are saying that to use the "nuclear option" would be hypocritical since the Republicans filibustered Clinton appointees. Unfortunately for them, that argument is a moot point, seeing as they opposed the filibuster option then but have now come to love it. It is time that the "nuclear option" be exercised and that judges be allowed a vote. Liberals need to relinquish their stranglehold on the only branch of government they've been able to maintain control of. They refuse to acknowledge that they are upset at the lack of elected representation in Congress and that they figure they can sidestep this issue by getting unelected judges to do their dirty work from the federal bench.