William A. Alexander – 4/22/05

This page was last updated on April 22, 2005.

Checks and balances are vital; William A. Alexander; Beaver County Times; April 22, 2005.

I’m amused by the Democrats’ new found concern for so-called “checks and balances.” As usual, liberals are trying to change the traditional meaning of “checks and balances” in an effort to confuse the issue. In the context of government, “checks and balances” refer to constitutional safeguards intended to ensure no single branch of government exceeds its constitutional authority. The ballot box is the “check and balance” to “protect” the minority party.

Below is a detailed critique of the letter.

“Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and the GOP senators are considering changing the rules of the Senate to limit discussion on nominees for federal judge appointments.”

[RWC] Not true. There is no proposal to limit a thorough review of a nominee’s qualifications. Senate Republicans are considering eliminating use of the filibuster to block a full Senate vote for a judicial nominee.

“During Bush’s first term, about 10 of the nominated judges were not confirmed by the Senate. Now, they want to change the rules and have 100 percent get nominated.”

[RWC] As I noted in an editorial critique, not all judgeships are created equal. For example, appellate court judges have more “power” than trial judges. That’s because appellate courts can overturn trial court rulings. The further up the appellate court chain you are, the greater your power. The appellate courts are where we tend to see “judicial activism” or “legislation from the bench.”

Mr. Alexander failed to note all 10 “filibustered” nominees were for appellate courts. That’s fully 20% of the 50 judges President Bush nominated for appellate courts.

“Great men and women over time have set up our system of government with checks and balances. These prevent the party in the majority from shutting out the party in the minority from participating in government.”

[RWC] Not true. As I mentioned above, “checks and balances” refer to constitutional safeguards intended to ensure no single branch of government exceeds its constitutional authority. The ballot box is the “check and balance” to “protect” the minority party. Democrats were the majority party for so long they appear to have forgotten this fact.

“The GOP has essentially done this in the House and is close to changing the rules in the Senate to achieve shutting out Democrats from participating.”

[RWC] If the filibuster is so important, why doesn’t the House have its equivalent? For the record, the House eliminated its filibuster equivalent in the mid-1800s.

“The other 49 percent of the country deserves at least some voice in our government, and especially lifetime appointments of federal judgeships.”

[RWC] No one is denying the minority “at least some voice.” Eliminating the filibuster for judicial nominees would only deny the minority the ability to rule the majority. If I’m not mistaken, one of the reasons for the American Revolution was to eliminate minority rule.

“Contact U.S. Sens. Rick Santorum and Arlen Specter and let them know your views on this very important Senate rule to protect the minority party of our country.”

[RWC] Why should we protect the losers? It’s up to voters to “protect the minority party” at the ballot box.

“No matter which party is in charge, the checks and balances of our democracy should never be weakened or eliminated.”

[RWC] I wonder if Mr. Alexander wrote a similar letter when Democrats proposed similar rule changes from the late 1980s through the early 1990s. I think I know the answer.