The one thing that irritates me most about the judicial filibuster showdown is the blatant dishonesty of the Democrats.

They aren't being honest about why they oppose Bush's nominees to the various courts, and are prevaricating about the supposed history of Republican use of filibusters against Clinton court nominees.

Anyone with the eyes to see can tell why they are dead-set against Bush's court picks. Having lost all elective political power, they will go to any length to preserve their hold on the courts, thus ensuring additional decades of left-wing judicial activism. Since the Left can't win at the ballot box, they must rely on judges who will legislate from the bench. This much is obvious. [And yes, I am the master of the obvious, thankyouverymuch.] They lie about the nominees, and even go so far as to try to apply the label "activist" to judges whose judicial philosophies and records are demonstrably not activist. Leftist protestations notwithstanding, taking the Constitution to mean exactly what it says is not "judicial activism," conservative or otherwise.

The lying — and that's what it is, in no uncertain terms — about GOP blockage of Clinton nominees is a lie of omission. Harry Reid and Teddy Kennedy can blather and drone on all they want, but they will never mention the essential fact that then, as now, Republicans were in the majority in the Senate, and thus legitimately in the position to approve or disapprove Clinton's nominees.

If the Democrats want to exercise the power to deny Bush his picks to the Federal courts, they should begin by taking their case to the voters and winning elections. Until and unless that happens, they should remember the old adage, "to the victor belongs the spoils."

Posted by Russ at 11:16 AM, May 18, 2005 in Politics