Carol Williams – 4/3/05

This page was last updated on April 3, 2005.

Checks and balances; Carol Williams; Beaver County Times; April 3, 2005.

It’s my opinion Ms. Williams is either woefully uninformed or is deliberately trying to mislead us. On top of that, Ms. Williams makes allegations but provides no supporting evidence.

Rather than completely repeat myself, refer to this critique for details on this topic. Below I’ll stick to the specifics of Ms. Williams’ letter.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“Radical Republicans want absolute power to appoint Supreme Court justices who will favor corporate interests and the extreme right over the rest of us.”

[RWC] “Radical Republicans?” If we could put Ms. Williams in a time machine and send her to the early 1960s, she would find today’s “radical Republicans” are barely right of that era’s Democrats.

“To get it, they plan to use a parliamentary trick they call the ‘nuclear option’ to overturn 200 years of bipartisan checks and balances that have kept the courts fair for centuries.”

[RWC] Let me get this right. Does Ms. Williams believe the minority should be able to veto the majority? That’s getting pretty close to tyranny.

Ms. Williams is mistaken. The so-called “nuclear option” she referred to was when Senate Democrats threatened to filibuster nominees who did not pass the Democrat litmus test (pro-abortion, pro-discrimination via “affirmative action,” et cetera) but who would be approved by a vote of the full Senate.

It’s not a “parliamentary trick” to kill filibusters for judicial nominees. The filibuster is a Senate rule – not a provision of the Constitution – and Senate rules can be changed with a majority vote.

Regarding the claim our courts have been “fair for centuries,” we should remember the courts found Constitutional slavery, segregation, and denying women the right to vote.

“Last term, Senate Democrats confirmed almost 95 percent of President Bush’s judicial nominees.”

[RWC] The Senate confirmed the nominees, not Senate Democrats. Besides, not all appointments are equal. The threatened Democrat filibusters were for “influential” appointments that could have led to the judge’s future nomination for the Supreme Court. Judges who interpret the Constitution based on what it says – not on what they want it to say – scare the daylights out of liberals.

“Eliminating the filibuster is not about overcoming so-called obstructionism. It’s about the desire for complete one-party control.”

[RWC] No one wants to eliminate the filibuster. The Constitutional option merely bars filibusters from the judge approval process. I wonder what Ms. Williams’ position was when Democrats were contemplating similar changes when they were the majority?

Republicans have filibustered a Democrat president’s judicial nominee only once, and that was only to promote a sitting Supreme Court associate justice (Abe Fortas) to Chief Justice in 1968. Here’s an excerpt from the Senate web site on the issue. “Fortas became the first sitting associate justice, nominated for chief justice, to testify at his own confirmation hearing. Those hearings reinforced what some senators already knew about the nominee. As a sitting justice, he regularly attended White House staff meetings; he briefed the president on secret Court deliberations; and, on behalf of the president, he pressured senators who opposed the war in Vietnam.” Based on this behavior, I don’t believe Mr. Fortas should have been an associate justice, let alone Chief Justice. Can you imagine the justifiable uproar we’d have today if we learned a Supreme Court justice regularly attended White House staff meetings, briefed the president on secret Court deliberations, and, on behalf of the president, pressured legislators to support Bush administration policies?

“While the nuclear option is likely to come up in a fight over a nominee, make no mistake - the real targets here are the four Supreme Court seats likely to turn over in the next four years.

“Republicans have taken millions of dollars from their corporate backers. Now they’re seeking to use the courts to pay back their big donors by overturning protections they have long agitated to remove, such as like labor rights, environmental laws and privacy rights.”

[RWC] Does Ms. Williams want us to believe Democrat candidates don’t take “millions of dollars from their corporate backers?” FYI, both President Bush and John Kerry received about 30% of their 2004 campaign funding from small contributors ($200 or less).

Ms. Williams seems to believe courts enact laws regarding “labor rights, environmental laws and privacy rights,” not Congress. With majorities in the House and Senate and a Republican President, Republicans could do what Ms. Williams alleges by passing laws.

Regarding the Republican alleged wish to remove “environmental laws,” the Environmental Protection Agency originated during a Republican (Richard Nixon) administration. I also haven’t noticed Republicans trying to remove privacy or worker rights. Indeed, it is liberal policies that tend to put the rights of individuals into the hands of government.

You’ll notice Ms. Williams gave us no examples of her allegations.

“Don’t give up more of your rights and protections. Contact your senators and tell them you are against this kind of tactic. We must keep our checks and balances in our government.”

[RWC] What “rights and protections” are we giving up? As they always have – and required by the Constitution, judicial nominees must be approved by a majority of senators.

If the filibuster is so important, perhaps Ms. Williams can explain why it’s not in the Constitution and why the House doesn’t have this rule?