Arlen Who?

So Arlen Specter has decided that he should get to decide who is qualified to be a federal judge. At least that's how I took his comments earlier this week, and so did the Washington Times. Instead of sitting around and waiting to see if he does the right thing when it comes to judicial nominees, I'm in with the camp of those that think a preemptive attack is best. The following is the text of an e-mail I sent to my Senators.
In the coming days, Republicans will meet in the Senate to determine the committee chairs for the upcoming session. The chair for the Senate Judiciary Committee will be of vital importance. Arlen Specter has proven he is not competent to hold this leadership position. He is already on record as stating that he will attempt to use a litmus test to prevent otherwise well-qualified judges from being appointed to the federal bench. Given the difficulties that faced extraordinary judicial candidates Miguel Estrada, Bill Pryor, and Priscilla Owen, a Judiciary Committee chair that will support the President's choices is essential. Sen. Specter is unwilling to offer that kind of support, and should not be given this position. I urge you to do all in your power to make sure he is not chosen.

If you, like us here at YPS, feel that judicial appointments are critical contact your Senators. Arlen Specter does not need to be in charge of the Judiciary committee. He won't do a damn thing to get more judges on the bench that understand the concept of federalism and have actually read the Constitution. I won't belabor the point, I'll just ask you to do your part and voice your opinion.


Blogger -Me said...

I ask, in all due respect to those who are against judicial activism, where they stand on Brown v. Board of Education. There are few cases that are a greater example of judicial activism. If it was left to the will of the majority or strict interpretation, Brown would have turned the other direction. It's seldom asked, but I will - would you have said that the Courts should not have desegregated the country, and that we should have waited for the legislature to do so. As a follow up, do you believe we still would be waiting?

"Judicial activism" has been around since 1803 ("It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.") Moreover, the role of the Court is, has been, and will continue to be, to protect the minority from the will of the tyrannical majority.

4:41 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home