Senator Salazar, despite voting to confirm Condoleezza Rice and Alberto Gonzales, is one of the targets of the Focus on the Family kids that want the U.S. Senate to "consent" but not "advise" on the President's judicial nominations, according to the Rocky Mountain News [April 16, 2005, "Focus on the Family targets Salazar"]. From the article, "The group's for-profit lobbying arm plans to attack Salazar and other senators in an advertising campaign in 45 newspapers and 70 radio stations. They are critical of the Democratic senators for holding up some of President George Bush's judicial nominees."
Mt. Virtus: "Even before I read Captain Ed's post, I had already taken a very solemn 'Not One Dime' vow. In fact, this week I mailed back a solicitation to renew my Republican National Committee membership with a big ZERO next to the contribution amount and a concise but pointed note to Ken Mehlman indicating that no Republican candidate or organization is going to get any of my hard-earned money until they follow up on their campaign promises and make use of the majority in which we have work so hard to help elect them to serve. Those of us who have faithfully supported the Republican Party, like Mike and Clay and myself (not to mention eminent center-right Republican icons like Hugh Hewitt and Bob Schaffer), are strongly urging Senate Republicans to break the judicial filibuster. Many of us have also expressed our profound disgust at the lack of leadership on this issue. Say it with me: 'Not One Dime!'"
Bull Moose: "The Moose was once again reminded why he would crawl over a field of broken glass for John McCain. That is why it is inspiring for one leader to dare to commit the truth, even if it jeopardizes his popularity with a key constituency. The Moose's former boss did that just this week on 'Hardball' when he announced his opposition to the nuclear option."
LeftInTheWest: "Now that Sen. Frist and his cronies have officially declared their intent to shatter the (ironically) bible-sworn oaths they made to uphold the Constitution, one must assume that we're about to enter bizzaro-judicial-land. In this parallel universe, sound justices who base their decisions on the law of the land or the Constitution can expect to be demonized and labeled as 'activist.' At the same time, newly installed judges can be expected to toss silly informalities like judicial restraint par fenetre in favor of their religious beliefs."
The Moderate Voice: "But readers should know that in private emails, phone calls, and a centrist Internet discussion group, TMV has been struck by the wave of absolute revulsion and alarm expressed by centrist Democrats, libertarian Republicans and independents over something we have not experienced up to this point in American history: an attempt to blatantly use the precious concept of religion as a divisive tool for the transparent purposes of getting political power."
Here's an in-depth piece about Constitution in Exile movement and it's possible effect on judicial nominations from the New York Times [April 17, 2005, "The Unregulated Offensive"]. From the article, "'Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain,' still in print 20 years after its publication, purports to specify the conditions under which government can rightfully impose regulations and taxes that reduce the value of private property. Drawing on the political philosophy of John Locke, Epstein argues that before the existence of government, individuals in what political theorists call the 'state of nature' have an inherent right of autonomy, which entitles them to acquire property by dint of their labor and to dispose of it only as they see fit through voluntary transfer of goods. Epstein also maintains that any form of government coercion -- including taxation or other forced transfers of wealth -- can be reconciled with the principles of personal freedom only if it makes individuals at least as well off as they were before the tax or regulation was imposed. Epstein's key insight, as the Constitution in Exile adherents see it, is that economic regulations are just as coercive as other involuntary wealth transfers. He insists that if the government wants to reduce the value of an individual's property -- with zoning restrictions, for example -- it has to compensate him for the lost value."
"Advocates of the movement are entirely sincere in their belief that the regulatory state is unconstitutional as well as immoral and that a principled reading of the Constitution requires vigorous enforcement of fundamental limits on state power. Nevertheless, it is a troubling paradox that conservatives, who continue to denounce liberals for using courts to thwart the will of the people in cases involving abortion and gay marriage, now appear to be succumbing to precisely the same temptation. If the lessons of the past 60 years teach us anything, when judges try to short-circuit intensely contested democratic debates, from the New Deal cases to Roe v. Wade, they may provoke a fierce political backlash that sets back the movement they are trying to advance. In this sense, even if the Constitution in Exile movement manages to transform the courts before it has transformed the country, it may find that it has won less than it hoped."
Thanks to TalkLeft for the link.
Category: 2004 Presidential Transition
7:17:37 AM 
|
|
