The Nuclear option
Republicans push, Dems fall over as the filibuster is threatened
Jenn Broome
Issue date: 6/14/05 Section: Opinions
For weeks now, political junkies watched in fascinated horror as the Senate moved ever closer to the "nuclear option" - a plan created by some Senate Republicans, most notably Majority Leader Bill Frist, to eliminate filibusters for judicial nominees. Like a flan in a cupboard, however, the Dems caved and confirmed Priscilla Owen for the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. I find it ironic that, although Democrats have confirmed more of Bush's judicial nominees than Republicans did President Clinton's, the Dems are being called "obstructionists." What's the big deal with these ten judges whose nominations are blocked? Why are they so important to Senate Republicans?
Republican rhetoric concerning the judicial branch is confusing at best. Republicans have repeatedly warned the American public against "activist judges" whose personal politics are a threat to the American people. Keep in mind that the complaint against "activist judges" was first hurled at those Supreme Court justices who voted to desegregate schools via Brown v. Board of Education. The fact that "activist judges" are deplored only when their decisions favor the rights of minority populations and women is telling. The ten (now nine) judges that Senate Republicans are chomping at the bit to confirm are just as politically involved as the Warren Court's justices. However, their personal brand of politics (conservative to fascist) keeps them from being labeled "activists." I began to wonder what was so important about these ten disputed judges that would make Republicans consider Frist's "nuclear option."
To my not-so-great surprise, it was the big three: abortion, homosexuals, and people of color. Here are a few of the more salient examples:
Priscilla Owen, who was confirmed May 25th, is so infamous for her activist decisions that she was castigated by no other than Bush's own counsel Alberto Gonzales. Owen is particularly famous for her attempts to restrict women's access to abortion. Owen wants to restrict judicial bypass, a procedure where a judge can grant permission for a minor to obtain an abortion without parental consent. Keep in mind that judicial bypass is required by federal law (see the Supreme Court decision on Hodgson v. Minnesota). Owen wants to require minors to undergo counseling sessions that detail religious objections to abortion - regardless of the minor's own religious beliefs - before they can even apply for a judicial bypass. No wonder Gonzales called her decision "an unconscionable act of judicial activism."
Republican rhetoric concerning the judicial branch is confusing at best. Republicans have repeatedly warned the American public against "activist judges" whose personal politics are a threat to the American people. Keep in mind that the complaint against "activist judges" was first hurled at those Supreme Court justices who voted to desegregate schools via Brown v. Board of Education. The fact that "activist judges" are deplored only when their decisions favor the rights of minority populations and women is telling. The ten (now nine) judges that Senate Republicans are chomping at the bit to confirm are just as politically involved as the Warren Court's justices. However, their personal brand of politics (conservative to fascist) keeps them from being labeled "activists." I began to wonder what was so important about these ten disputed judges that would make Republicans consider Frist's "nuclear option."
To my not-so-great surprise, it was the big three: abortion, homosexuals, and people of color. Here are a few of the more salient examples:
Priscilla Owen, who was confirmed May 25th, is so infamous for her activist decisions that she was castigated by no other than Bush's own counsel Alberto Gonzales. Owen is particularly famous for her attempts to restrict women's access to abortion. Owen wants to restrict judicial bypass, a procedure where a judge can grant permission for a minor to obtain an abortion without parental consent. Keep in mind that judicial bypass is required by federal law (see the Supreme Court decision on Hodgson v. Minnesota). Owen wants to require minors to undergo counseling sessions that detail religious objections to abortion - regardless of the minor's own religious beliefs - before they can even apply for a judicial bypass. No wonder Gonzales called her decision "an unconscionable act of judicial activism."
Be the first to comment on this story