Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

The fight for the courts

The Terri Schiavo case has demonstrated the importance of an independent judiciary, but Republicans are determined to pack the courts with ideologues.

The political firestorm ignited by the Terri Schiavo case has energized conservatives for the looming Senate showdown over some of President Bush's controversial judicial nominees. It could get ugly.

Unhappy with court rulings on sodomy laws, the Pledge of Allegiance and abortion, social and religious conservatives have made transforming the federal judiciary their top priority in Bush's second term. Now, with the Schiavo case delivering another defeat in the courts, Republican leaders in the Senate have promised to ram through all of the president's nominees, even if that means changing their institution's long-standing tradition and rules.

What the Schiavo case demonstrates, among other things, is the importance of maintaining an independent judicial corps whose sole commitment is to uphold the rule of law, not some ideological outcome. Beyond a few courageous souls in Congress and the Legislature, it has been the dozens of judges and justices who have consistently brought calm order and reasoned judgment to the Schiavo matter. And for their efforts, these jurists have been pilloried by those in Congress who would use the issue for political gain.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has been one of the worst offenders, using the Schiavo family tragedy to shore up his conservative credentials for a run for the presidency in 2008. If Senate Democrats attempt to filibuster any judicial candidates, Frist has vowed to explode "the nuclear option" - a radical change in Senate rules to shut down the use of filibusters against judicial nominees. There is a possibility this could occur soon after Congress reconvenes next month. Democrats say that if this maneuver is tried, they will use parliamentary rules to slow the Senate to a crawl. They rightly remind Frist that the Senate has always given some deference to the minority party.

Democrats have used the power of filibuster sparingly - against only 10 nominees for the appellate courts last year. They have confirmed more than 200 of the president's nominees for the federal bench. For the most part, Democrats have resorted to the filibuster to block nominees whose views are judged outside the judicial mainstream or unwilling to respect precedent when it conflicts with their personal creed. Although Republicans have a Senate majority, they lack the 60 votes required to end a filibuster.

Our nation is best served by judges who will follow the law and not the day's passion, as was demonstrated in the legal battle to decide Terri Schiavo's fate.

The upcoming fight in the Senate will not just be over individual judicial nominees; it will also test the ability of the Democrats and a handful of moderate Republicans to prevent the courts from being turned into ideological force. The great majority of Americans who believe that Congress overreached by intervening in the Schiavo matter have a stake in this fight.

[Last modified March 28, 2005, 01:35:09]