Who gets to appoint federal judges should be the #1 issue in 2008 election
If the Republicans really want to keep the White House in their control and even have the possibility of regaining control of Congress, they should make judicial tyranny and the appointment of federal judges by the next president as the most important issue of the 2008 election. Even those on the left in the Democratic Party know that this is the paramount issue since they have virtually shut down voting on President George W. Bush's nominees to the United States Court of Appeals. As of early December, Senate Democrats had approved only 5 of President Bush's nominees to the federal appeals court. The average number of appeals court judges confirmed by the Senate majority when the president is from the opposite party is 17 judges. The Republican majority confirmed 15 of Bill Clinton's nominees to the appeals court, so the Democrat majority in the Senate are way behind even this pace.
Besides the fact that the next president could very well name two or more new Supreme Court justices (John Paul Stevens will be 88 years old next month and Ruth Bader Ginsburg will be 75 years old this week,) there are far too many vacancies on the federal bench, especially on the court right below the United States Supreme Court, the federal appeals. court.
To review why who gets to appoint federal judges is so important, take a look at these examples of recent judicial tyranny. In September 2005, Federal Judge Lawrence Karlton, appointed by Democrat Jimmy Carter, dictated to the American people that children could no longer recite the Pledge of Allegiance in their schools because of the words "under God" in the pledge. That same week, Judge Denise Hood, appointed by Democrat Bill Clinton ruled that Michigan's ban on the gruesome partial-birth abortion procedure was unconstitutional. And during the next week, Clinton Judge Nanette Laugherty declared that Missouri's pro-life parental consent law was unconstitutional.
Some more recent examples include Clinton Judge David Coar last month conspiring with the judicial tyrants on the Illinois State Supreme Court in preventing a 13-year-old parental notification law from being enforced. Judge Sandra Lynch appointed by Bill Clinton ruled last month that parents could not prevent discussion about homosexul "families" in their children's elementary schools including kindergarten classes.
There are countless examples of such judicial tyranny in the past couple of decades; indeed, since the most infamous decision in Supreme Court history, the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. It would behoove not only John McCain but Senate and candidates for the House of Representatives, to make judicial tyranny their top issue in the 2008 election.