Why The Fight Over Judicial Nominees??

In case you have not heard, tomorrow will bring a moment when Democrat Senators have to decide whether to perform their advise and consent responsibility or to push for a filibuster of the nomination of Priscilla Owen. If they choose to filibuster, then Senator Frist will move for a vote to eliminate filibusters of judicial nominees. This scenario has caused a bitter battle among political activists of both sides. WHY?

Mike Parker, staff writer for The Free Press, stated it simply and clearly:

How can confirmation of men and women to the federal bench breed such a bitter fight? What is at stake that would have Democrats threatening further filibuster and Republicans threatening to invoke the "nuclear option"?

The plain fact is that everyone has come to understand the power of the courts, especially the federal courts. A federal judge is appointed for life, so anyone confirmed to the federal bench today will have the power to shape law for decades.

The power to shape law has been around since Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the majority opinion in Marbury vs. Madison in 1803. The most important effect of that decision was to establish the precedent for judicial review. Simply put, this decision said the Constitution means what the U.S. Supreme Court says it means.

If the Constitution means what the federal courts say it means, then those we put on the federal bench to decide those meanings become vitally important. For most of our history, judges felt bound in their rulings by legislative intent and by precedents.

In recent years, judges have taken a more activist role. Too many have worked to put their perceptions of fairness and equity above the plain text of law. Justices and judges no longer seem bound to the rule of law.

Because the federal judiciary has housed so many activist judges, our citizens have learned that if they want quick changes to public policy, they need to attack in the courts, rather that in the legislatures.

Policy decisions that could never survive public debate and become law in state legislatures and the U.S. Congress are now made law in just a few years through court decisions.

But should our courts "make law"?

Should any citizen or group really be able to bypass duly elected legislative bodies and have important issues ultimately decided by unelected judges, judges never accountable to the people?

If the current threat of Senate meltdown demonstrates anything, it shows how much power both Republicans and Democrats perceive federal judges to have.

Have we at last surrendered our Republic? Has it been replaced with a form of "oligarchy" - rule by the elite few?

If Democrats force Republicans to change the rules regarding filibusters, and if the Republican action destroys the "comity" of the Senate as the Democrats claim it will, they have only themselves to blame. Since Democrats have placed judicial activists into the federal courts, we have no choice but to try to win back the courts. In military terms, this is Total War. Winner takes all. Liberal judges are subverting the will of the people, subverting the morality of our nation, and turning our nation away from God. The comity of the Senate is of no consequence compared to what we risk with an arrogant national attitude toward God.

Jeremiah 48
42 Moab will be destroyed from being a people
Because he has become arrogant toward the LORD.

Jeremiah 13
15 Listen and give heed, do not be haughty,
For the LORD has spoken.
16 Give glory to the LORD your God,
Before He brings darkness
And before your feet stumble
On the dusky mountains,
And while you are hoping for light
He makes it into deep darkness,
And turns it into gloom.
17 But if you will not listen to it,
My soul will sob in secret for such pride;
And my eyes will bitterly weep
And flow down with tears,
Because the flock of the LORD has been taken captive.

  ¶ 3:44 PM|