Sam Says The filibuster's last stand?

Author: Sam Wilson

Conservatives do not seem too fond of the judiciary of late.

Take Republican House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. After Terri Schiavo died, DeLay said of the judges who refused to reinsert her feeding tube: "The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior." He did not elaborate on the threat with specifics, though.

On Monday, Republican Senator John Cornyn spoke on the Senate floor saying, "It causes a lot of people, including me, great distress to see judges use the authority that they have been given to make raw political or ideological decisions.And I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception - judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in, engage in violence. Certainly without any justification, but a concern I have."

I am told this would be an example of doublespeak. He first rationalized why people would feel compelled to violently attack judges. Then he backtracked and placed himself among the reasonable saying that such violence is or would be without justification. But, if violence directed at judges due to judicial activism is unacceptable, why rationalize it in the first place?

To be fair to Cornyn, he is a former judge himself, and his staff says that he has many friends who serve on the bench, so it he is clearly not calling for armed interpretation of the law by the people. Rather I think this was a rhetorically-fumbled attempt to start the rally for the next big battle in Congress - judicial nominations.

Conservatives are quite peeved with "activist" judges. You can spot an "activist" judge by their rulings. They extended marriage rights to homosexuals in Massachusetts, removed the Ten Commandments from federal lands, decided Roe v. Wade and other such dastardly things. Asking judges to intervene in the Schiavo matter was not judicial activism, though. That was submitting to a higher law.

To rectify this, conservatives have pushed hard to get extremely conservative judges nominated to federal courts. In the president's first term, he nominated 214 judges. Senate Democrats, by use of a filibuster, blocked 10 of those judges saying those nominees were too radically conservative.

After the election last year, the President renominated the same rejected judges, hoping the increase of Senate Republicans could get them through. However, the Senate Democrats are standing firm, saying they will filibuster again. The Republicans counter by saying if that happens they will change the Senate rules and eliminate the filibuster.

Basically all of this from DeLay's threats and Senator Cornyn's foot-in-mouth remarks to Senate Majority Leader Frist saying he'll destroy the filibuster is just macho posturing and intimidation tactics. If DeLay and Frist can rally the hardcore conservatives enough to scare the Democrats into flinching, the Republicans win and the judges will be nominated.

But, outside of the Senate do we really want the law to be interpreted by people whose supporters are energized by threats and justifications of violence?