SwiftVets.com

[SBD]

For Immediate Release
Jul 12, 2005 Contact: Press Office
202-646-5172

U.S. Senate Defends Judicial Filibusters in Court on Eve of Supreme Court Nomination

Senate Lawyers Claim Court Review of Judicial Filibusters Would Be "Disastrously Intrusive"

(Washington, DC) – As President Bush moves to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, Senate lawyers filed a brief with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit defending the use of the filibuster rule to block judicial confirmations, Judicial Watch, the public interest group that fights government corruption, announced today. According to the brief, which was filed on July 1 in Judicial Watch’s filibuster lawsuit appeal against the United States Senate, deliberations involving judicial nominees are “quintessentially political questions that are not appropriate subjects for judicial resolution.”

“For the court to engage in the review plaintiff seeks would require an invasive inquiry into internal Senate processes that go to the heart of the Senate’s prerogatives as a House of Congress,” Senate lawyers argued. “Judicial intrusion into these matters would express a lack of respect for the Senate as a coordinate branch of government.”

Judicial Watch sued the U.S. Senate in May 2003 in order to have the court declare unconstitutional the use of filibusters to block judicial confirmations, Judicial Watch, Inc. v. The United States Senate, et. al. (Civil Action 03-1066, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.). In its original complaint, Judicial Watch addressed the question of whether or not the judiciary had the authority to review the judicial confirmation process. “Courts have consistently found that they may hear challenges to Congress’ rulemaking where, as here, other mandates of the Constitution are implicated,” Judicial Watch argued. “[The] courts have well-established authority to hear suits – any ‘political’ implications notwithstanding – asserting that congressional rules violate constitutional limitations.”

“It is the height of hypocrisy for Senate lawyers to claim that judicial review in this case reflects a lack of respect for a co-equal branch of government,” said JW President Tom Fitton. “A minority of liberal Senators has diminished the role of the Executive branch in the judicial appointment process and caused harm to the judiciary by refusing to allow up-or-down votes on judicial nominees. The courts not only have a right to adjudicate this case, they have an obligation to do so in defense of the U.S. Constitution.”

A full copy of the Senate’s brief, and other court documents related to Judicial Watch’s Senate lawsuit, can be found on Judicial Watch’s Internet site, www.judicialwatch.org. The Brief for Appellees can be found here.

SBD

[coldwarvet]

The left wing is on auto pilot programed for a crash landing.
_________________
Defender of the honor of those in harms way keeping us out of harms way.

"Peace is our Profession"
Strategic Air Command - Motto

USAF 75-79 Security Police

[LewWaters]

I guess the looney left feels the courts are only there to adjudicate their wishes. They can and do drag any and everything into court today, but let someone else do it and they whine like the little babies they are.
_________________
Clark County Conservative

[GM Strong]

The court has no jurisdiction here. The Senate makes its own procedureal rules and the Constitution says so. The problem is the knuckheads in the Senate that can't deal with protocol and civility. Mostly Libs like Schmucky Schumer, Teddy the Swimmer, and Dingy Harry Reid.
_________________
8th Army Korea 68-69

[PhantomSgt]