OUT OF THE MAINSTREAM

This Page Hosted By
Get Your Own Free Home Page

      (Website editor's note..........Charles Pickering's rejection by the Senate Judiciary Committee happened in late winter 2001-2002. The Democrats were still in control of the US Senate at this point, meaning that all the committee chairman were Democrats. The Democratic Party thus controlled what the full Senate was allowed to vote on. As a result, even though a majority {50% + 1 vote} of the Senate was ready to confirm Charles Pickering, the issue couldn't even come to a vote because it was "hung up" in committee.

       Why did Charles Pickering have the backing of the majority of the Senate? This was a result of the opinions of "a few crossover Democrats," i. e. Democrats who are more interested in what kind of man Mr Pickering is, his decisions in the past, and what kind of judge he might be in the future; as opposed to Democrats who base their vote on the fact that President Bush nominated him.

      As a result of the 2002 elections, contol of the Senate passed to the Republicans, including all the committee chairs. "Hooray," you say. "Now, the President's nominations will be decided on by a majority vote in the full Senate, as opposed to a committee chaired by a liberal Democrat. The will of the majority will now be translated into action."

      Not so fast, camper. A new (maybe, depending on where and when you went to school) word for your vocabulary: "Filibuster." This is a way that a group of Senators can prevent an issue from coming to a vote of the full Senate, simply by continuing to talk...and talk...and talk...and...etc - about anything and everything except the item of business that you are filibustering. How can tthe Senate end a filibuster? If 60% vote to end it, it's over, and the item oof business that was being filibustered can then be voted on. A filibuster is a legitimate tactic put into the US Constitution by the Founding Fathers to add another level of consideration to items of business being considered by the Senate. The more impediments to legislation, the better, so the reasoning behind this went; so as to avoid bad legislation, hastily conceived legislation, or legislation without sufficient thought given to all of the fu- ture consequences and ramifications. This is why the Founding Fathers made it so difficult to amend the Constitution.

      Here's the rub. Are the liberal Democrats who are filibustering President Bush's court nominees doing so because they honestly believe these are bad nominations, or are they doing this merely because they don't like President Bush?)



This is a composite of two items taken from Nealznuz; one dated 15 Mar 02 and the other dated 11 Apr 02.

(Nealznuz is Neal Boortz's Program Notes for his nationally
syndicated talk radio show. Click here to go to his web site).

       The leftist Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday "Borked" Charles Pickering. Straight party-line vote. Straight partisan politics. It was, of course, nothing less than a warm-up for Senate Democrat efforts to block any Bush nominees to the Supreme Court.

       {Note...Senator Daschle, the Plurality Senate Leader, refused to allow a full Senate vote on Mr Pickering. It appears that Mr Pickering has the support of several conservative Democratic Senators; and thus would have received a majority of the vote from the full Senate}.

       The excuse the Democrats use? They say that Bush’s nominees – and this includes Charles Pickering – are “out of the mainstream.”

       This “out of the mainstream” phrase is a favorite one for Democrats. The problem here is that few media outlets and fewer Americans ever ask the question “Just what is the “mainstream” to Democrats?”

       Simply put – in one sentence – the “mainstream,” to Democrats, is simply the Democratic Party social and economic agenda. It has nothing to do with the views and opinions of mainstream Americans --- just Democrat Party leadership. Anything at odds with the Democrat agenda is, by definition, “out of the mainstream.”

       Now … more specifics? Here are some of the things that Democrats consider to be “out of the mainstream:”

  • A belief in a strict interpretation of the terms of the United States Constitution.

  • The belief in the sovereignty of the individual.

  • The belief that the role of government, particularly the federal government, should be strictly limited.

  • The concept that oral sex is, indeed, just what we all know that it is: i. e. sex

  • The belief that government functions should be carried out by local governments, and that state or federal governments should play a role only when issues are broadened beyond the local level.

  • The belief that all Americans should be treated equally under the law, regardless of race, religion, gender, ethnicity, etc. (Website Editor's Note: in re hate crimes - some people are actually illogical and irrational enough to believe that a white robbing, raping, killing, etc a black or a gay is a more serious crime then a black or a gay committing the same crime on a white).

  • The belief that the government and taxpayer-funded agencies should not discriminate for or against any individual on the basis of race or gender.

  • The belief that individuals have a right to the fruits of their labor, and that government should only seize the property of individuals when such seizure is absolutely necessary to fund the proper and constitutionally appropriate functions of government.

  • A belief in lower taxes and less government.

  • A belief in your right to self-defense.

  • A belief in the concept of private property rights.

  • A belief that tax cuts are NOT give-a-ways to the rich.

  • A belief in defending this nation from missile attacks by rogue nations.

  • A belief that you, not the government, should decide what kind of artwork your money will be spent on.

  • The idea that elected officials should not be allowed to routinely obstruct justice and remain in office.

  • The idea that elected officials should not be allowed to routinely lie under oath and remain in office.

       Obviously, there are more items that can be added...suffice it to say that Charles Pickering certainly will not be the last Bush nominee to be "Borked" by the Senate. Liberals understand that most of their victories over the past 50 years have come from the courts; not thru the legislative process. To continue with their efforts to make America the liberal, socialist utopia they envision, they will have to continue with their efforts to pack the judiciary with fellow travelers.