Thursday, February 21, 2008

Judges require up or down votes

The U.S. Constitution states that the President "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments." At this time, 28 well-qualified judicial nominees are awaiting their turn. They simply desire a fair up-or-down vote in the confirmation process. Instead, they are forced to wait - while some liberal Senators, members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, ignore the constitutional mandate to give judges up-or-down votes. It is one of the Senate's most important duties ... to provide prompt consideration of presidential nominees for the federal judiciary. Yet, today's liberal congressional leadership has failed to meet its constitutional duty. In fact, despite urging from the President, Senator Patrick Leahy, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and his fellow liberals have continued to embrace a policy of obstructionism when it comes to giving judicial nominees timely consideration. Make no mistake: These judicial nominees are exceptionally qualified men and women who are committed to serving our nation. They deserve fair treatment. They deserve the up-or-down vote afforded them by the Constitution. In some circuit and district courts, where judicial spots have remained empty for far too long, extreme backlogs have been created and ''judicial emergencies'' have been declared ... ... all of which means JUSTICE IS BEING DELAYED. And when justice is being delayed, justice is denied. It's a plain and simple truth: Not giving each of these nominations an up-or-down vote violates the Constitution. However, do you think the liberals care if justice is being denied. Of course not. Now, I'm definitely not a fan of President Bush. However, I will say that he does has a history of appointing judges that are strict constructionists, which means they strictly follow what the Constitution says, and they don't interpret or put their own political meaning into the Constitution. And why are the Democrat Senators, such as Leahy not allowing the Senate to vote? Simply to stall time for a Democrat President to be elected and then the new President will appoint some very liberal judges that do not follow the Constitution, but will further the liberal agenda (force mixing of the races and laws that violate this notion and gay rights, such as gay marriage or civil unions, and of course immigration). Call your local U.S. Senator and request that they allow the Senate to give an up or down vote. Finally, one last bit of history info to all of you. Today, February 21, 1848, the Communist Manifesto was published. If you haven't read it, you need to. Examine what the communists' goals are, and then look at the laws, policies and the agenda of the NeoCons and liberals. Can you tell the difference? Until then.

No comments: