SamSaid!

THE BATTLE

     Earlier today, the Senatorial debates over Federal udicial nominees began. Majority Leader Bill Frist put the ball in motion and the speeches began. In many ways, the exchanges between Rs and Ds were like many other debates over controversial issues. The two nominees, Judges Brown and Owens, were both praised and dissected. Prior to the beginning of the Senate session, the Senate Democrats had a publicity meeting on the steps of the Senate Office Building and invited some of their House associates to attend, including Nancy Pelosi, the Minority Leader of the House.It was Ms Pelosi who labelled the 2 nominees as being outside the “mainstream” of American life. Considering her far left posture, I think Ms Pelosi knows about as much about “mainstream USA” as a pig knows about Sunday.

     The pattern was set early on. The Repuiblicans presented George Bush's nominees is the most favorable light, stressing educational accomplishments, judicial credentials, exemplary records, civic involvement, etc etc etc. No surprise. On the other hand, the Democrats nit-picked into their judicial decisions to find fault on all sorts of issues. Again, no surprise. To the impartial observer, it was hard to tell if they were talking about the same persons. As an aside, I really dislike watching 2 well educated and accomplished people being bad mouthed as they were. If it were me, I'm not sure I would want to go thru all of that pain and anguish, and I am sure the many potential nominees would withdraw before subjecting themselves to such treatment.

     In all fairness, Sen. Murray of Washington and Sen Durkin of Illinois made very good cases why neither nominee should be confirmed. And of course, they basked in the idea of open debate on the merits, or lack thereof,  of Judges Brown and Owens and they seemed to relish the chance to bad mouth both of them. But considering the real issue involved, the detailed trashing of the 2 Judges by the Democrats misses the point. The issue at this stage really isn't whether the nominees should be confirmed; rather, it is whether the 100 members of the Senate should be allowed to vote on the nominees. Murray and Durkin made good cases why Senators should cast a ”no” vote, just as Sen Hatch and others made fine cases for voting “yes”. And so what is the result of all of this debating?  Like virtually all forms of debate, it comes down to a decision or a vote. But the Democrats are saying. “Oh, no! We don't like these judicial nominees. Therefore, we will NOT ALLOW A VOTE  — by the entire US Senate”. That's right, no vote! So what is the purpose of debate when there will be no vote on the issues or persons?? Just keep on debating forever??

      There will be more and more jousting and manuevering over the next several days, but the bottom line decision is whether the full Senate will be able to vote — up or down  — on the nominees. If the Democrats adamantly refuse to end debate and allow a vote under current Senate rules, then the the Senate rules will have to be changed. Not much middle ground here.

     Hang in there, Bill!