Ok, so when I joined this community recently I had every intention of writing epic diaries. Alas, two small kids and a busy law practice has made that difficult, if not impossible. Plus, all my spare time is taken up with reading the wonderful contributions of all of you who daily show me how woefully ill informed I really am.
One of the things I've learned here is that even the smallest effort can have an impact, so when I was the recent Tampa Tribune op ed on the filibuster, I mustered up my first ever LTE and it was published!
Parroting our Dobsonite friends, the Tribune set aside pretenses of rational argument, blamed the judges and painted the Democratic position as nonsense:
But collegiality has long been forfeited in political showdowns, and this is what it has come to in judicial selections as the two parties gear up for the inevitable Supreme Court vacancy. For it's the expanded power of the Supreme Court and the justices' willingness to dictate the nation's cultural values that is most responsible for creating this judicial war zone.
The relevant issue should be whether judicial nominees are competent and honest. Instead, ideology has become the litmus test by which judges are judged. It's a wonder that any meritorious candidate who ever advocated an unpopular belief would put his or her name forward for consideration.
Democrats say they are preventing votes on the president's judicial choices because the nominees are right-wingers whose view are ``outside the mainstream.'' But this is rhetorical nonsense. A judge is challenged to follow the law, whatever his or her personal beliefs.
Reading this bleary eyed after too late a night perusing the diaries and emboldened by the activism of the fine members of this community, I shot off my first LTE which was published yesterday morning:
Somehow it was OK when Republicans killed Clinton's judicial nominations for ideological reasons, but not now, when it's the other way around?
That it is the responsibility of the minority party to protect its constituents against lifetime appointment of judicial extremists on either side is not rhetorical nonsense. Democrats confirmed 221 conservative Bush appointments. Only the seven most extreme have been the subject of filibuster threats.
The notion that judges created this problem by ``dictat[ing] the nation's cultural values'' is patently absurd. Judges can decide only the cases before them. Were it not for extremists who insist on imposing their religious values on everyone else and enforcing them through governmental action, these cultural issues would not be before our courts and legislatures. It's time for the rhetorical assault on our judiciary to stop before it incites violence against judges.
It just goes to show that it really doesn't take all that much effort to get your voice heard. Less than 30 minutes with a keyboard. How empowering! For those of you who want to be more active but can't seem to find the time, do small things like this. The cumulative effect of all of us doing something small can be momentum for change.