24 April 2005

nothing better to do...? part VII

"Justice Sunday - Stopping The Filibuster Against People of Faith"

I don't understand. How did people of faith become the persecuted? The religious right has been attacking anything and anyone who does not agree with it in a reverse type of hyperbole. They have made themselves the martyrs going into the Coliseum to meet the lions. Haven't they been the lions for the last several years. THEY are being persecuted? THEY are at risk of legally being denied rights given by the Constitution? THEY are the ones being identified as evil and worthy of oppression and immanity? THEY are being told that they don't have the right to choose what is to happen to their bodies, where they want to live, who they want to marry, or where they want to work?

As far as this latest movement to do away with the filibuster so that Bush's (and their) nominees can be appointed, what about the nominees they worked against during the Clinton Administration. Clinton nominees were approved at less than a 72% rate. How can they explain that 81% of Bush's nominees in his first term have been approved? If the situation were reversed would they be doing the same thing? You bet...

Sen. Smith, R-NH, said on the floor of the Senate during the Clinton nomination of Richard Paez:

But don't pontificate on the floor of the Senate and tell me that somehow I am violating the Constitution of the United States of America by blocking a judge or filibustering a judge that I don't think deserves to be on the circuit court because I am going to continue to do it at every opportunity I believe a judge should not be on that court. That is my responsibility. That is my advise and consent role, and I intend to exercise it. I don't appreciate being told that somehow I am violating the Constitution of the United States. I swore to uphold that Constitution, and I am doing it now by standing up and saying what I am saying." (March 7, 2000) [Thank you, dailykoz.]

The judges that are being held up are "activist" judges on the extreme right's agenda, but the right is saying that "activist" judges are making law about marriage, sodomy, etc. Isn't that what they intend for their nominees to do? Isn't the judiciary supposed to be held to a definition of law based on fact and not personal belief? Wasn't that the intention of the Constitution's creation of an independent judiciary?

The "activist" judges that the right has been attacking were all nominated by Republican presidents - Justice Kennedy being the prime example. These justices have intelligence and the interpretation of law based on the Constitution - they have not been attacking the Constitution that I can tell. Oh, and they haven't been fostering an "agenda" of any particular group that I can identify either.

I strongly defend the right's freedom to believe what they want, behave as they see is best for them, worship how is best for them, and to discuss anything they want to discuss. What I do not defend is their thinking that they have the right to deny me these exact same things nor to tell me that I should believe and behave as they do. Democracy is not based on this premise. It's based on certain inalienable rights given to the people by the people. Don't they...

...have anything better to do...?

No comments: