« Admiral James Stockdale 1923- 2005 | Main | Notice »

Baiting Sen. Schumer

Senator Schumer has said that “this is war” and I take him at his word. But the war isn’t against the President or the opposition. The war is against us. Let’s stop all the fol-der-all over who the candidate might be, there are no candidates that Senator Schumer and the Democrats will find acceptable, except those whom they nominate. And that is the crux of the problem. According to the Constitution, the minority party in the Senate has no power in this matter. The Executive branch has the power to nominate, and the Senate has the duty to ‘advise and consent’. The rules of the Senate drive the process of confirmation.

To illustrate my case, I have gone through the effort of putting five candidates before the Senate Judicial Committee. My point is this; that these candidates are real people, with real backgrounds and almost all of them are in fact, Democrats and have received judicial appointment by Democrats in the past.

However, none of this will matter, as this exercise has nothing to do with the operation of Government or the qualification of a given candidate. This exercise is about political power. The power of a small minority with no accountability, to stop the government from functioning.

Here are five candidates. I guarantee of these people were put in front of Sen. Schumer, they would all be rejected for nothing but ideological tests. Tests for which no man or woman could pass without giving into political pressure and outright intellectual bribery. This is what has happened to our government as a result of the acts of the Democrats, the Judiciary is no longer an independent branch; it is now a subsystem to the Legislature.

Tomorrow I will reveal the names and further details of these people so as to illustrate just how far down the hole we have already gone towards tyranny.

Candidate #1:

Candidate #1 is the first member of his/her religion to receive a nomination to the Court. His/Her nomination is considered quite controversial, not just because this persons politics is considered out of step with the mainstream but with this person’s religion being the butt of many jokes and for many in our culture members of this religion are considered second class citizens not suited for public office. While this person does not proselytize the religion in their public life, it should be noted that the tenets of this religion do not allow for homosexual marriage or abortion. During the nomination process a five-man subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony concerning this persons "fitness" to the office of Associate Justice. A former President has signed a letter along with six former presidents of the American Bar Association urging rejection of this person’s nomination on grounds that they were unfit. The president of Harvard University joined a letter adopted by other leaders of the community urging rejection of the nomination.

Candidate #2:

Candidate #2 is an immigrant to the United States from war torn Eastern Europe. Although this person has written many scholarly works while at Harvard University, this person is best know by their articles published in “The New Republic” magazine founded by like-minded progressives. This candidate is controversial to members of the Senate Judicial Committee because of this candidate has spoken freely of the need for “Judicial Restraint”. In one controversial case this person concluded that a public school was permitted to expel a student who refused, for religious reasons, to salute the American flag. This persons positions on controversial issues has caused other members of the bar and of the judiciary to leave the room when this person is speaking, due to their manner of speaking and the opinions that they hold.

Candidate #3:

Candidate #3 is from the south and it has been long rumored to have the support of organizations of the extreme right wing. This person’s career as a successful trial lawyer, handling personal injury, criminal and other cases has had a good if not sensational reputation. Candidate #3 was elected prosecutor of their home County, and remained in office for three years, when due to the recent national emergency Candidate #3 voluntarily enlisted in the Army, was commissioned a captain.

Candidate #4:

Candidate #4 is a former POW and a US Senator.

Candidate #5:

Candidate #5 has practiced law, but the Bar association in his state does not require that he have a Law degree. Candidate #5 was called upon by the President to oversee the establishment of United Nations legal operations dealing with overseas prosecution of organizations and people that the United States considered to be “War Criminals”. His tenure was considered controversial due to the extra-legal aspects of this prosecution, a point that was brought up many times during the defense of the alleged war criminals. While Candidate #5 was performing his duties for the President, the US Government was engaged in a controversial incarceration of thousands of former combatants of the recently deposed regime.

See you tommorrow...

Posted @ July 06, 2005 01:37 PM | Current Affairs