Sibby Online

Todd Epp, good question!

Todd Epp has a post regarding a fundraiser John Thune is having in New York. Todd’s anonymous source from DC has this question:

And is NYC a hotbed of "Heartland Values" as the PAC is named?

We have to look no further than Epp’s web site for insight to the answer. Here is an excerpt from Tim Johnson’s press release regarding the vote to continue the filibuster of Janice Rodgers Brown that Epp posted:

Justice Brown has also attempted to remove protections for teachers, and has been hostile to such New Deal era programs as Social Security. She has called government assistance programs "[t]he drug of choice for … Midwestern farmers, and militant senior citizens." These views are out of touch with most Americans and South Dakotans.

So who voted with Tim Johnson to continue the filibuster of Brown’s nomination? Both New York Senators! That’s right Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, and Tim Johnson were among the 32 Senators to vote against cloture.

So is being a New Deal socialist a Heartland Value? Good Question!

Is obstruction a Heartland Value? Good question!

Privacy rights?

From Rush Limbaugh:

Folks, listen to this. Listen to this whole thing. An Associated Press story that just recently came over the transom: "A judge in New York tossed out a lawsuit brought by a 115-year-old private club that sought to strike down no-smoking laws so that the club could continue to honor its members, including Walter Cronkite and Carol Burnett, with ceremonies that include lighting up. ' The Players Club', said the judge, 'is no more entitled to special privileges with city and state health inspectors enforcing the laws than are pro-tobacco organizations that tried unsuccessfully to overturn them.' The judge is a federal judge, US District Judge Victor Marrero. 'Individuals have no fundamental constitutional right to smoke tobacco.'" Individuals do have, I'm editorializing, I'm adding to this, individuals do have a fundamental constitutional right to abortion. Individuals do have a fundamental right to kill their babies, but individuals, according to this judge, have no fundamental constitutional right to smoke tobacco. Now, I wasn't aware that it had been declared an illegal substance.

"The judge said that the smoking bans target conduct, smoking in certain places, rather than speech, association or assembly, which are not regulated by the statutes. The judge rejected the argument that the laws caused a prohibition on a club tradition in which members are honored with pipe ceremonies which involve smoking on the club's premises. The judge then suggested the ceremonies still might be able to occur after a substitution of suitable non-tobacco products." Well, what is a suitable non-tobacco product that you can light up? Would that be marijuana? What if the Players Club decided to light up marijuana in their pipes during their ceremony to honor the members? It's a private club. Everybody going there knows exactly what's going to happen. I mean, that's a separate argument, but this line from the judge's opinion, "individuals have no fundamental constitutional right to smoke tobacco." Why not? I mean it's not mentioned. Why can't we say, "It's in there, right to privacy! Right to whatever we want to say it's under"? Find something in the Fourteenth Amendment that allows it. You do have a fundamental right to abortion. Kill your child, but you don't have a fundamental right to smoke tobacco. US district judge in New York.

Priscilla Owen and Tom Daschle

Priscilla Owen helps us understand why Tom Daschle lost his re-election bid in 2004 and Priscilla Owen also represents the impact of that loss.

Here is why Priscilla Owen represents the reason Tom Daschle lost in the 2004 South Dakota Senate race:

While conservatives lauded Sutton's confirmation, they chastised Democrats for playing politics with Owen, who becomes the second judicial nominee to face a filibuster by the Senate. For her nomination to pass, Republicans must amass 60 votes, a hurdle they are unlikely to overcome.

Since early March, Democrats have opposed Miguel Estrada's appointment to the influential D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Minority Leader Tom Daschle said Democrats would use the same tactics to block Owen's nomination to the 5th Circuit.

"She has chosen to put her own position ahead of the law," Daschle said when asked about the filibuster Tuesday afternoon. "In her interpretation of the law on case after case she has made the decisions that her own views are superior, her own views are ones that have greater weight than the law itself."

Instead of Owen, Daschle said Democrats would be glad to consider the nomination of U.S. District Judge Edward Prado. Bush nominated Prado after Democrats opposed two other nominees for the 5th Circuit: Owen and U.S. District Judge Charles Pickering.

Owen has been the target of liberal attacks for rulings she made as a Texas Supreme Court justice. Liberal groups claim she has carried out a campaign against women's rights, and they cite a ruling she made on parental consent for abortion.

It was in 2004 when South Dakota was on its way to pass legislation that would ban abortion in South Dakota. It failed only because of the concern that the US Supreme Court would rule against South Dakota and force South Dakota to pay Planned Parenthood a large sum of money as a consequence.

Tom Daschle’s filibuster of President Bush’s conservative judges based on a litmus test on abortion provided the evidence that Tom Daschle had turned his back on South Dakota values and instead represented the far-left as the leader of the Democrats in the US Senate. Even though his 2004 campaign tried to lie about his position on abortion, Daschle’s DC position was clearly exposed due to the publicity he received as the leader of the Senate Democrats.

Poetically, today’s successful confirmation of Priscilla Owen represents the impact of Tom Daschle’s 2004 defeat. The successful vote would not have been possible without yesterday’s 81 to 18 vote that stopped another filibuster. On May 8, 2003 the Republicans failed to stop a Daschle led filibuster 52 to 45. Senator Tim Johnson clearly demonstrated the impact of Daschle’s defeat. Johnson voted to preserve the 2003 Daschle filibuster, but voted against continuing yesterday’s filibuster. Then today he voted against the Owen confirmation, which clearly shows yesterday’s vote was not one in support of Owen, but one of realization that the past obstructions of Tom Daschle was wrong.

It was because of John Thune 2004 campaign's successful effort, showing the truth about what positions Tom Daschle stood for, that lead to the removal of the chief obstructionist. It was because of John Thune's victory over Tom Daschle that paved the way to today's up or down vote on the confirmation of Owen.

At about 9PM on election night, I realized that John Thune was the winner after hearing the results of Minnehaha County. It was at that time that I said the people of South Dakota just saved America from the tyranny of the judicial system. Today is just the first example of that prediction.

Minority rule down to 14%

Just got back from vacation and the first thing I hear is about the so-called compromise by 14 Senators regarding judicial nominations. Excerpt from today’s Argus Leader:

"We have reached an agreement to try to avert a crisis in the United States Senate and pull the institution back from a precipice," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., adding the deal was based on "trust, respect and mutual desire to .... protect the rights of the minority."

McCain made a huge mistake. First you never trust the Democrats.

Second, he just reduced the so-called "minority rules" approach to judicial nominations from the 40% needed to stop cloture down to just seven Senate Democrats and seven Senate Republicans. Although this tyrannical rule by just 14 is five more than the tyrannical rule of nine Supreme Court Justices.

It is disturbing to think that the MSM will help the Democrats turn the use of tyranny that overrides our right to representation to something that is called "the rights of the minority". I don’t think 9 Justices and 14 Senators are a minority that should have more rights than the rest of us.

Outside groups control Senate Dems

From the Washington Times:

The "nuclear" showdown that is expected to begin unfolding in the Senate today has its origins in closed-door discussions more than three years ago between key Senate Democrats and outside interest groups as they huddled to plot strategies for blocking President Bush's judicial nominees.

In a Nov. 7, 2001, internal memo to Sen. Richard J. Durbin, who is now the minority whip, an aide described a meeting that the Illinois Democrat had missed between groups opposed to Mr. Bush's nominees and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat and member of the Judiciary Committee.

Based on input from the groups, I would place the appellate nominees in the categories below," the staffer wrote, listing 19 nominees as "good," "bad" or "ugly."

Four of the 10 nominees who Democrats have since filibustered were deemed either "bad" or "ugly." None of those deemed "good" by the outside groups was filibustered.

Among those listed as "ugly" was Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen, whose nomination will be brought to the floor today by Majority Leader Bill Frist, Tennessee Republican.

The internal Democratic memos, downloaded from Democratic computer servers in the Judiciary Committee by Republican staffers, offer a unique look into the early stages of the filibuster campaign, when Democrats were clearly doubtful that they could succeed in blocking any of the nominees.

In the 14 memos obtained in November 2003 by the Wall Street Journal and The Washington Times, Democratic staffers outlined the concerns held by outside groups about Justice Owen's "hostile" position toward abortion and her "pro-business" attitude.

In a June 4, 2002, memo to Mr. Kennedy, staffers advised him that Justice Owen would be "our next big fight."

Janice Rogers Brown's neighbor

From Rush Limbaugh:

CALLER: I'm a neighbor of Janice Rogers Brown, and I'm listening to all of these people who do not know her. I've known her for about 15 years and we live in a racially diverse community, and I know her personality. I know how she interacts with people. I know that she has worked with crime victims' rights in California. I know her from the time that she worked on Governor Wilson's staff. I know how she has fought to keep criminals locked in prison where they belong, how she has fought diligently for tougher sentences for those people who prey upon the innocent in our society, and it just appalls me to no end that I'm hearing all of these people who do not know her. She's a very calming soul. She's very gentle. She loves her fellow man. She loves this country. She's everything that people have fought so hard for the last 200 years to make something of themselves. She is from a family of sharecroppers. My grandfather was a sharecropper. We have worked our butts off in this country to make something of ourselves. I'm not at the same level that she is as far as academics is concerned; she has her JD. She has been on the California Supreme Court. She's worked in the governor's office as his right hand person when it comes to the law in California. I know this lady like a sister. We live about two blocks from one another, and it is wrong -- absolutely wrong -- for these people to be talking about her the way that she is simply because of her beliefs. Are you there, Rush?

RUSH: Yes, I'm here. I see no reason to stop you. It's well stated.

CALLER: I'm just angry today. I am just angry, and livid.

RUSH: You should join the club. You know, I agree with you totally. It's appalling, and it's frustrating at the same time to listen to good people like this have their whole lives trashed and destroyed and lied about, the reputations under fire by a bunch of pompous, arrogant, monarch-like senators.

CALLER: And, you know, Rush, the reason why the Democrats are losing so many of us African-Americans to the Republican Party is simply because they're a bunch of arrogant (exhale). Oh, I'm just furious right now. But they have told people in this country for many, many years that they are about the people who are the little person, the downtrodden, the minorities and all of those people. But once we get to a certain level in society, they squash us like a bug, and they do not want us to come up to a certain level, and those of us who try to break that bubble and make something of ourselves and who think as individuals and not in lockstep because somebody says, "This is the way you're supposed to think," then they fight tooth and nail to destroy us.

RUSH: You know why? Let me tell you why, because you've hit the nail on the head with everything you said but that last point you made is especially correct and poignant. The reason for it is: That's why they feared Clarence Thomas. Clarence Thomas, justice of the Supreme Court, is arguably the most powerful black man in America. And he stands as living proof that you do not have to go through Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton or the NAACP to make something of yourself. You can do it on your own. You don't have to go through the Democratic Party with their patronage. You don't have to do it with affirmative action. You don't have to do it with all the government prescriptions. You don't have to do it with government at all. You can do it on your own, and the prominence of people like Clarence Thomas and Justice Brown is proof positive of the fact that the Democrats do not deliver and cannot deliver what they've been promising for 50 years, that people can do it on their own -- and as such she represents a huge, huge threat to their future. That's why they seek to destroy her. Thanks so much for the call, Pat. I appreciate it.

The tale of two letters

Today’s Argus Leader has two letters to the editor regarding the judical nomination controversy in the US Senate. One letter provides the Democrats spin:

In response to the writer concerned that "liberal Democrats" are blocking conservative judicial nominees, and to his statement (insinuation) that South Dakotans said "enough," and retired Sen. Tom Daschle, I have this to say: Blocking six out of 200-plus nominations is hardly what I would label bullying.

Was it bullying to confirm only 368 out of 488 of President Bill Clinton's nominees?

And please, don't speak for all South Dakotans. I'm one, and I did not vote to retire Daschle. Am I happy with the direction our country is going? Definitely not. It has been going downhill ever since the first Bush election, and is still headed that way, dragging democracy right along with it. Bringing religion into our government will not make us more holy, just more religious.

According to the writer, I must be in the "party of no." Yes, I will continue to say "no" to an administration I feel is steadily whittling away at democracy, women's rights, care for the elderly, the poor, the homeless, poor children - an administration that deceives the people and never takes any blame, and condemns anyone who dares to not conform to its image of what is good in the eyes of God.

Fortunately there is a letter that tells the truth:

The Democrat minority likes to brag that it has confirmed almost all of President George W. Bush's judicial nominees. So why are conservatives complaining about the 10 nominees that liberals have been holding hostage in a filibuster?

What the left doesn't tell you is that all those confirmations have been in the lower, less powerful U.S. district courts. The battle, however, is for confirmation of the more powerful U.S. appeals court nominees.

According to The Economist (April 23), in the first and second Congress of their terms the confirmation rate of appeals court nominations were: Presidents Johnson 97 percent, Reagan 78 percent, George H. Bush 76 percent, Clinton 71 percent. However, so far George W. Bush has had only 50 percent of his appeals court nominees confirmed.

Remember, confirmed or not, for over 200 years they all received a vote. Every nominee deserves a fair vote. Like Sen. Bill Frist, Tenn., said, it's not radical to ask the senators to vote - that's why we send them to Washington.

The Argus Leader also has a Rober Regier Op-ed that points out the need to stand up to the courts who have trumped the will of the people. We learned this first hand a couple of years ago when we were ready to ban abortions in South Dakota. The argument that defeated that bill was how much money South Dakota will lose when the Supreme Court rules against our right to protect life.

Anti-gun group behind filibuster

In Mark Levin’s book, "Men in Black", he points out that far-left special interests groups are behind the effort to stop conservative appointments to the bench. Yesterday I received an email from the anti-Second Amendment Brady Campaign that contained this message form Ted Kennedy urging the obstruction of the William Myers nomination:

Dear StopTheNRA Member,

My good friends at StoptheNRA.com have kindly agreed to send this email to allow me to reach out to you and ask for your help in defeating extremist judicial nominees who will align themselves with the NRA's all-out campaign to gut sensible efforts to prevent escalating gun violence.

A poisonous right wing infection has gotten hold of the US Senate. They've got a narrow Senate majority that's not enough to get their extremist judges on the courts. So they're scheming to change the fundamental Senate rules, silence the minority, and get their judges approved. It's an assault on the Constitution and the whole system of checks and balances that makes our democracy work.

This unprecedented scheme will reach a crisis in the coming days. The focal point may be William Myers, a nominee rejected last year who's been nominated again. He'll be the test vote on this far-out power grab.

I'll say no on William Myers -- and no to the poisonous abuse of power right- wingers are trying to foist on the Senate. Please say it with me:

http://www.stopthenra.com/site/R?i=zjznpU5e0HH-_v2Mejv72Q..

The vast, vast majority of President Bush's nominees -- over 95 percent -- have been confirmed by the Senate for the federal courts. But the Senate refused to confirm a handful of them who are too extreme to swallow - the worst of the worst, the very bottom of the right-wing barrel.

Bush has nominated Myers for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals – the largest federal court of appeals, and a potential stepping stone to the Supreme Court. It also has jurisdiction over vast expanses of public land and priceless natural resources -- which makes a person like Myers especially unfit to serve.

He's spent his career trying to dismantle the legal protections our courts exist to protect. As a lobbyist for mining interests, he was handpicked by President Bush to regulate that industry. His only experience has been manipulating laws and regulations for corporate gain, against the public interest.

Myers and the other rejected nominees make up a band of corporate facilitators and right-wing crusaders who don't deserve lifetime power to shape laws that govern us. We have to say no:

http://www.stopthenra.com/site/R?i=dJBTH3hKzL7-_v2Mejv72Q..

On the merits, there is simply no case for why William Myers should be confirmed.

Fortunately, the Constitution and two hundred years of Senate history give a minority of Senators like Democrats are today the right to say no to irresponsible nominees like Myers.

But the majority leaders in Congress won't take the Constitution for an answer. They want to change the basic long-standing Senate rules, silence the minority, and force Myers to the federal court for life.

I need your help. If we all stand together, we can stop this madness. Please - say no to Myers now:

http://www.stopthenra.com/site/R?i=oismtQ7odwf-_v2Mejv72Q..

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Senator Edward M. Kennedy

More Dem hypocrisy

I had an after thought on the Tom DeLay issue. Remember how the Democrats argue, we are not traitors. Can’t we voice our dissent toward the President? Now I have a Question for the Democrats. Can’t Tom DeLay voice his dissent toward a Supreme Court justice? After all, it is an equal branch of government to the executive branch. Perhpas the Democrats don't believe in equal branches of government when the Republicans control the White House and Congress.

Rush Limbaugh found an even more direct example of the Democrats’ hypocrisy:

Let's talk a little bit about Tom DeLay. Now, this is the exact opposite of what we've got from these "maverick" Republicans in the Senate. (story) "DeLay yesterday intensified his criticism of the federal courts. He singled out Anthony Kennedy and his work from the bench as 'incredibly outrageous' because he had relied on international law and done research on the internet. DeLay was on Tony Snow's radio show yesterday on the Fox Radio News Network, and basically DeLay said, 'We got Justice Kennedy writing decisions based upon international law, not the Constitution. That's just outrageous, and not only that he said in session he does his own research on the Internet. That is just incredibly outrageous.'" Now, I'm going to be talking to DeLay this afternoon. I don't know what's particularly outrageous about somebody using the Internet themselves. I do it. But he's got to have a reason for it and I want to find out what that is, and we will, and I'll pass it on to you tomorrow if I get the answer.

But contrary to all of these people that are cowering in fear, DeLay said, "All right, you want to hit me? Well, fine! Hit me again, because this is what I really think. I'm totally entitled, anybody is, to comment on the performance of a judge." This is essentially what he's saying. He's echoing Scalia. Scalia said the same thing. Scalia went out there and said basically the same thing. He just didn't single out a justice by name but we all know who he was talking about. He was debating another Supreme Court justice on the whole concept of deciding US cases on the basis of international law. He was debating Stephen Breyer. We have played you audio sound bites of that debate, which aired on C-SPAN. Scalia has been mentioning his colleagues left and right, just not by name, but he, too, is flabbergasted that international law has become something relevant in deciding US constitutional cases. So DeLay says the same thing.

Now Scalia, of course, was attacked but not because he shouldn't have said it. He was attacked for what he said. DeLay is being attacked because he said it! They can't believe he's saying it. Can we contrast this, though, however? There was a contrast. People's memories are short. Does anybody remember what Dingy Harry Reid said about Clarence Thomas? Clarence Thomas was accused of basically being an idiot! His writings don't pass muster; his intellect doesn't past muster. He's an embarrassment to the court, Dingy Harry Reid said -- and did we see the press going through outrageous contractions and expansions? Did we see the press outraged at all? No. No. They loved it, and they echoed it, and they amplified it throughout their own echo chamber. But let Tom DeLay say it? "DeLay Criticizes Justice Kennedy -- Sharpening his attack on judicial activists, the House leader focuses on one particular judge." You didn't see headlines anywhere near like that when Harry Reid went after Clarence Thomas.

We are not worthy

Again, Todd Epp provides insight on the Democrat mind. Only lawyers have the ability to understand the Constitution. The rest of us are too stupid. Epp posted a response to Tom DeLay’s statements that took issue with Supreme Court justices that used the Internet and International laws to support their rulings:

DeLay is endangering public respect for judges and the rule of law. He obviously holds our profession--a profession that resolves disputes, helps ensure rights, helps businesses run, and is a pillar of American democracy--in low repute.

Please, my GOP attorney colleagues, tell DeLay or tell Thune to tell DeLay that he is wrong, wrong, wrong.

So only an attorney is worthy? Todd, how about the rest of us? Is it not a duty of an American citizen to fully understand the law of the land? Well if Epp doesn’t want to listen to my opinion in regard to the judiciary, maybe he will listen to a legal scholar who graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Temple University in 1977 at the age of nineteen. In 1980 Mark Levin graduated from the Temple University School of Law. On page 22 of his book "Men in Black", Levin says this:

It is as if many of these [Supreme Court] justices will rely on anything but the Constitution to guide their decision-making, And there’s a reason for this: The Court has so fundamentally altered its duties, and so completely rejected the limits placed on it by the Constitution’s checks and balances and enumeration of powers, that the justices are in an endless search for extra-constitutional justifications and inventions to explain their activism. The power they crave does not exist in the Constitution, which is why they must constantly skirt its provisions.

Reliance on international law is a complete rejection of not only the roles of the other branches, for these are not decisions or laws reflective of their deliberations or actions, but the Constitution itself.

Judicial activists are nothing short of radicals in robes—contemptuous of the rule of law, subverting the Constitution at will, and using their public trust to impose their policy preferences on society. In fact, no radical political movement has been more effective in undermining our system of government than the judiciary. And each Supreme Court term, we hold our collective breath hoping the justices will do no further damage, knowing full well they will disappoint. Such is the nature of judicial tyranny.