Monday, May 09, 2005
The Courts, the Filibuster and Truth: Does it matter?
Is there a Christian position on the issue of the fillibuster crisis in the Senate? I don’t believe there is with regards to who should sit on the bench or not, but ending the crisis
appears to fall under the basic calling of the Christian - pursuing the truth.
Regardless of whether you are a Democrat or a Republican we all have the desire, as Christians, to see this current process of handling judicial nominees handled right and fairly. What does that mean? Click below to see my take on this current situation....
The Courts, the Filibuster and Truth: Does it matter?
As I followed the coverage of the impending Senate showdown the past few weeks a few things have come to my attention that I think people should really think through, especially if they are religious persons who place a value on honesty, truth and goodness:
1) The filibuster is not about free speech. I have heard this as one of the Democrats reasons for being up in arms about the impending change of Senate rules. If we change the rules, so the argument goes, then free speech will have been squelched. It is clear that the Senate rules are designed to give each Senator a chance to state their opposition or agreement to any bill or nominee. As citizens who should pay attention to the proceedings of our government this is a very good thing. However this particular battle does not appear to have anything whatsoever to do with free speech. If it did the Democrats led by Harry Reid would have accepted the 50 hour debate offer, giving as it would over an hour to each opponent of the nominees. What more could be left to be said after 50 hours. What is more, some of these nominees have been waiting four years to be voted on! After four years, do the Democrats still feel they have not had their opportunity to make their case?
2) Protecting the people against the rule of the majority. Again, this is something that all American citizens should be grateful for—the presence of checks against the rule of the majority. As a Christian I do not live in fear that one election may cause my worshipping of God to become illegal. At the same time, it is interesting that now, after the Democrats have been out of power for a decade that they now become concerned about the rights of the minority. For the period from 1932 to 1994 many judges were placed on the bench who vigorously reinterpreted the Constitution to meet their own whims. During all that time Republicans did not use the filibuster to stop this process from proceeding (even in the Abe Fortis situation, where the Democrats were part of the bid that led to the removal of Fortis’s name from consideration for Chief Justice).
What is more disconcerting about this new “protecting of the minority” is that it makes the process of election meaningless. IF the minority can always block the government from making any decision, any changes, and any appointments, then the process of elections becomes meaningless and our democratic system will fall apart. The rights of the minority need to be addressed, but at what point does losing elections become more important than winning them?
3) Some of these nominees are dangerous to American culture. This is the most penetrating position being bandied about by the Democrats. This past weekend Senator Reid said that Janice Campbell Brown of California wanted to take American back to the Civil War days. One has to wonder if Senator Reid was aware that Brown is both a woman and a person of color, both of which would have been denied the right to even vote before the 15th and 19th Amendments. Nominees Bill Pryor and Charles Pickering has been called a “fundamentalist Catholic” and a race baiter, despite the heroic work of the later against the forces of segregation in Mississippi and the fact that no where in the Constitution does it say that being a Catholic disqualifies the former. What is being done right now is character assassination, and as Christians we can not tolerate such. The traditional standard of the testimony of two or three witnesses is a good standard here, and rather than just acquiesce to the characterization of any individual—be they Democrats, Republicans or other is unacceptable. Present the evidence, then let the people who have been empowered to vote do their duty. Currently the nominees are unable to defend themselves against the public ridicule being leveled, which creates an unfair situation. Bring the nominees before the Senate, question them, let the evidence of their “crimes” of radicalness or otherwise be made known to the U.S. citizenry, and then give enough time for the Senators to receive public feedback and vote appropriately. If these people are dangerous to America, then one would expect that the majority of Americans will communicate their displeasure with these nominees and they will be rejected. Otherwise, they should be approved.
4) The filibuster is a good tool in dealing with judicial nominees. The basic argument here is that the judiciary, because of their lifetime appointment need double scrutiny. The problem with this concept is that it violates the separation of powers in the Constitution (which as a Christian matter to me in the sense that it is the rules of the game that all federal officials agree by oath to uphold). By the Senate giving itself powers unenumerated in the Constitution it places them in a position above both the Presidency and the judiciary. It makes the judiciary then a tool of the Senate, and at that a tool of the minority of the Senate. Such a chancing of the rules violates the oath that these Senators have taken.
If this process continues (and one would not expect the Republicans to do the same when they lose control of the Senate and White House, since playing by the rules when the other participants in the game, while noble and the right thing to do, is more than we are likely to get from elected officials), then we are at risk of the death of the judicial branch. Since no candidate is assured of a hearing, no replacements will eventually be offered. This is already according to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court happening in the lower courts. Eventually even lifetime appointees leave their bench, and without a working process to name and confirm the replacements, the courts will literally be emptied. This may well be the case come later this year when the Supreme Court loses one or two members of its number. Are we really desiring of a court with only seven members? And then fewer? This is the situation that placing the courts under the Senate, a body who face election only every six years and therefore are more apt to disregard the opinion of their citizenry?
Based on the above, Christians, regardless of our political party, should be concerned that the game is played by the rules that all agree to when then become Senators and that no one is subjected to discrimination simply because they hold a particular religious belief (and this would be true of a person of Jewish, Islamic, Mormon or other belief). We as Americans deserve to know the truth about each nominee (debate) and then we deserve to see our elected officials vote on these same nominees. That is the simple answer to this filibuster situation, if only the parties involved will remember that is what the Constitution calls for.
Christopher Morton
The Roving Theologian
http://www.rovingtheologian.com
Theological Musings on Important Topics • (10) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink
