News-Record.com

Mr. McLean,

I have just one question. When we speak of "checks and balances", where is the check and balance on the judiciary branch of government? The executive and legislative branches are elected by the people, but the judiciary is appointed for life; there are no term limits. The judiciary has only to rule that something, in their considered opinion, is "unconstitutional", and who can dispute or offer a check or balance on their opinion? There really is none. Once a justice gets in office, they really are free to practice what ever brand of politics they choose, and have no doubt, they do practice politics.

The "check and balance" on the judiciary is the entire Congress. When a federal judge rules on something and it is felt to be wrong, then the Congress becomes involved. It is call and AMENDMENT to the Constitution. It takes time for this to happen, however, there is a check on the judiciary!

The American Judiciary is perhaps the one branch that is not concerned with t=which way the political wind blows. We ought to be grateful for that. The shameless posturing by Speaker DeLay, who ended his own father's life by pulling the plug was all about political gain, rather than actual caring about the person whose life was at stake. The fact is that this is a perfect example of why our form of government works so well- the independent judiciary whose sole function is to mediate disputes with regard to the rule of law.

Darryl and Teddy,

Another check is that Congress may impeach justices.

Still another, and probably most importantly, although Congress has rarely used this power, is that Congress may decide whether even to allow the Supreme Court to hear certain cases. The possible act of Congress forbidding the Court from hearing certain types of cases is known as court-stripping. Most people think this is unconstitutional, but it's not. Read Article III, Sections 1 and 2 of the Constitution. They tell in which types of cases the Court has original and appellate jurisdiction. The key part is in Section 2: "In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

Note the final qualifying clauses. Congress may except certain cases and regulate the Court.

Don't misinterpret me here. I don't think this is a good thing. I think this is one flaw in the Constitution. It apparently renders the Supreme Court almost powerless, which I don't consider a good thing.

"Davenport simply doesn't like recent court decisions..." You hear that a lot. I wonder how often, if at all, people who think they know the "right answer" in a court case based on media reporting everbother to read these court decisions? I've been maing a habit of looking up the text of some infamous decisions. By and large, they use sound logic and respect for the rule of law. A couple of things that a lot of Americans need to learn more about, including the folks up in Washington.

Actually David, the author of the rule change is no other than that unregenerate Klansman now the Senior Senator from WVA, the dishonorable Robt. Byrd. Byrd created the nuclear option which he used on the Senate floor in 1977, 79, 80 and 87.
It is crass hyprocrisy for him to now decry use of the same tactic he authored and used.
But beyond this archaic Senate rule, it is NOT Constitutional to use this tactic to withold an up or down vote on any presidential nominee. Check it out, no mention of 'filibuster' in th Constitution.

THe federal judiciary is now out of control. Judges are becoming very creative at finding "rights" in the COnstitution the founding fathers never intended. They are now in their attempt to reshape American society as to use "international standards" as a rationale for making a judicial decision (see the last 5-4 vote on 18-yr old death penalty). What does international norms have to do with American law? What do they have to do with our Constitution? (hint -- NOTHING)
Bush was voted in by 3-1/2 million votes over the effete' waffler Kerry and has the prerogative as granted in the Constitution to name qualified judges WHO DESERVE AN UP OR DOWN VOTE WITH 51 NEEDED TO CONFIRM.

Now, David....take a deep breath and repeat after me: "Kerry lost the Presidency, Democrats lost Congress. We Liberals need to get a life and we need to get a platform besides "NO""

your friend

Mike Crouch

Hear Hear!! Mike Crouch,

You are quite correct sir.Only 51 votes are needed to confirm a judicial nominee.

The original filibusteros were Spanish and Portuguese pirates .The Democratic obstructionists best be careful else they may find themselves walking the plank

The Dems have flauntingly violated the law for too many years in their filibuster process.
The law says what needs to be done, the Democrats are violating the law, the the Republicans are restoring it.
Very simple.

I have a question:

1) What is keeping the democrats from fillerbustering ALL of the president's appointments?