Column/Legend
1 - Prefix  - L-Life,  H-Homosexual Behavior/Perversion, R-Religion/Legal Persecution/ACLU, E-Education, M-Media Bias, O-Other
2-7 - Yr, Mo, Dy
8 - L -Letter to Editor, C-Commentary, O-Op-Ed, M-Metro

Hotlink Index of this weeks's family values related news:  [Life]   [Homosexual Behavior/Perversion]   [Religion/Religious Persecution]   [Education]   [Media]   [Other]

LIFE
L050425        Wrap up of 2005 General Assembly Activities
L050425       GOP has votes for 'nuclear option,' McConnell says
L050426       Reid offers GOP a deal on stalled court nominees
L050426       Undecided Specter could doom GOP
L050427       Frist stands firm on up-down vote
L050427        Judicial battle seen as attack on faith
L050427        Panel wants stem-cell ethics guidelines
L050428        House approves abortion limits
L050428        Stem-cell research upsets Catholic doctors

HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR/PERVERSION
H050425        Wrap up of 2005 General Assembly Activities
H 050425     West High math teacher accused of anti-gay remarks plans to resign
H050425      ARIZONA   Navajos outlaw same-sex 'marriage'
H050426Md Groups target bills on gay rights
H050427       Texas House OKs marriage ballot measure
H050428L    Virginia, homosexuals and adoption
H050429      Dad arrested after protesting \'gay\' book

RELIGION/RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION
R050425       Frist takes filibuster fight to Christians
R050425       Justices argue international law
R050425       P.C. scholars take Christ out of B.C.
R050425C    At stake in filibuster flap
R050426      Frist angers conservatives by distancing from DeLay
R050426C   Filibuster benchmarks
R050426E   The Democrats' intimidation tactics
R050427      Bypassing bishops
R050427C   A time for choosing II
R050427C   The war on religion
R050427E   Embracing faith and tolerance
R050428     Lusty speech
R050428     TEXAS   School board adds Bible class as elective
R050428C   . . . amid fog
R050428C   Disinformation . . .
R050428C   Gavel powers
R050429      ALABAMA   Monument to be set up at church
R050429      Anti-Christian hate
R050429      Defrocked lesbian pastor appeals church's decision
R050429      Democrats scorn Frist offer
R050429      HAWAII   Mormons, gays agree on discrimination bill
R050429      Salazar's 'Antichrist' flap spotlights judicial battle
R050429      The 'religious left'
R050429C   Confirmation angst
R050429E   A compromise on the 'nuclear option'
R050429E   Debate and then vote
R050430     Church reinstates lesbian minister
R050430     Critics heap abuse on Benedict XVI
R050430C  A savvy justice stalled

EDUCATION
E050427Va   GMU's sex fair goes on despite legislators' displeasure
E050428E     Political correctness at Harvard

MEDIA
M050427       Phony poll
M050427       Ratings crash
M050427       Wary Democrats discover a severe 'parents gap'
M050428       Most in U.S. say press is biased
M050428C     Misreporting the Duelfer report, again
M050428E     Supping at the children's table
M050429C    Casting the first stone
M050429C    Shielding children from indecency

OTHER
O050427Md Cardin announces Senate candidacy
O050428       Abstinence program shows results
O050428       Bolton foes seen as U.N. backers
O050429C    Homegrown sex trafficking
O050429E    Shifting the blame won't keep children safe
O050429Md Rising GOP star Steele struggles to pick race to run

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 

L050425   Wrap up of 2005 General Assembly Activities

Notes after the 2005 Legislative Session Ended April 11, 2005
PRODUCED BY ASSOCIATION OF MARYLAND FAMILIES

More information will follow as we see which bills the Governor will sign and which he will veto.

There is a strong probability there will be a Referendum ( the “peoples veto”) on SB796 if the Governor signs it or if he vetoes it and the veto is overridden.

I am available for an ISSUES AND ANSWERS FORUM at your church or civic organization.  Please give me a call.

Doug

MARYLAND MARRIAGE DIMINISHED

The hour was late, some previous debates were contentious and then SB796-Medical Decision Making Act of 2005 came to the Senate floor.  The Senate had passed it 31-16 earlier and now the House had added several amendments and sent it back to the Senate for “concurrence”.  This means only an “up” or “down” vote, no more amendments.  Senator Alex Mooney, Senator Nancy Jacobs and others were ready with solid arguments as to why this is a bad bill forMaryland.  Instead of hearing and debating the valid discussion, the majority interrupted the debate with a “ruling” by the Senate Rules Committee to limit debate and force a vote.

The key amendment on this bill is ASECTION 3. AND BE IT FURTHER ENACTED, That this Act may not be construed in any way that conflicts with the public policy of the State that recognizes a valid marriage to be only a marriage between a man and a woman.@;

While this amendment might appear to protect traditional marriage, it in fact, DIMINISHES MARRIAGE by equating it with “life partnerships” which can be dissolved with a certified letter after only 90 days and allows anyone over 18, not related, not married or in a civil union of domestic partnership with another individual. Therefore this bill legalizes fornication.

This time the vote was 32-15, Senator Ralph Hughes, (D) Dist.40 Baltimore City sided with the homosexuals and voted for the “life partnership” bill.  Sadly Republicans, Kittleman, Munson, Pipkin and Schrader also voted for this eventual “civil union” bill.

The bill will now go to the Governor.  It is there that we hope to have the Governor VETO SB796. PLEASE CALL SOON!

The Governor’s number is 410-974-3901 his email is governor@gov.state.md.us

Earlier in the session Del. Joseph Vallario (D) Dist. 27 Prince George County refused to let the Judiciary Committee, and therefore ALL VOTERS vote on HB 1220- Valid Marriages.  This Constitutional Amendment bill would have put the question of whether marriage is one man and woman on the ballot in 2006. Voters in 18 other states have amended their Constitutions to define marriage as God intended.

HB 1298 Recordation Tax for Domestic Partners – This bill exempts registered ”domestic partners” from property transfer tax.  Another benefit traditionally reserved for married men and women to protect the homestead for the wife and children.

By adding sexual orientation to HB407-Safe Schools Reporting Act  Forces schools to report incidences of “harassment” to the State.  More unnecessary paperwork, less time to teach. Schools will be able and eventually forced to teach that homosexuality is “normal” and equal to heterosexuality and criminalize those who oppose it.

HATE CRIMES LEGISLATION INCREASED

SB578 and HB692-Hate Crimes Penalties Act-    Intended to protect churches, but expanded to protect “sexual orientation” in most crimes.  Sensing passage, Sen. Haines (R) Carroll/Baltimore County added an amendment to exempt, pastors and individuals speaking in peaceful activities from this bill.

STEM CELL RESEARCH DEFEATED

While the prohibition of cloning was defeated in the Senate Health, Education and Environmental Affairs Committee and Adult Stem Cell Research Act was defeated in the House Health and Government Operations Committee,  the Maryland Stem Cell Research Act proposing Embryonic Stem Cell Research was passed by both the House and the Senate.

The Senate bill got tied up in the Rules Committee but 20 brave, dedicated, pro-life Senators promised an extended filibuster if the House version was brought to the Senate floor.  Family Protection Lobby, the Maryland Catholic Conference, Pro-Life Maryland, MD Right to Life and the Maryland Christian Coalition notified our email Alert lists and our Prayer Alert lists resulting in many, many calls going into the Senator’s offices.  We know of two Democratic Senators who told the Senate President that they were going to stick with the filibuster until the bitter end!  Since the opposition couldn’t get enough votes to break the filibuster, the bill was never brought to the Senate floor!   It died at midnight April 11, 2005- THANKS FOR ALL THE CALLS!

Now we need to call, or better yet write, each of these Senators to THANK THEM for standing firm for LIFE!

They are:
Senator John Hafer (R)               Dist. 01             Allegany, Garrett & Washington Cnts      301-858-3565
Senator Donald Munson (R)        Dist. 02            Washington County                                301-858-3609
Senator Alex Mooney (R)            Dist. 03            Frederick &Washington Counties           301-858-3575
Senator David Brinkley (R)          Dist. 04             Carroll & Frederick Counties                   301-858-3704
Senator Larry Haines (R)            Dist. 05             Carroll & Baltimore Counties                   410-841-3683
Senator Norman Stone (D)          Dist. 06            Baltimore County                                   410-841-3587
Senator Andy Harris  (R)             Dist. 07             Baltimore & Harford Counties                  410-841-3706
Senator Alan Kittleman (R )        Dist. 09             Howard andCarroll Counties                   410-841-3671
Senator Sandra Schrader (R )     Dist. 13            Howard County                                      410-841-3572
Senator John Giannetti, Jr. (D)    Dist. 21             AA and PG Counties                              410-841-3141
Senator Leo Green, (D)               Dist. 23             Prince George’s County                          410-841-3631
Senator Roy Dyson (D)               Dist. 29             Calvert, Charles & St. Mary’s Counties    410-841-3673
Senator Phil Jimeno (D)              Dist. 31            Anne Arundel County                             410-841-3658
Senator Ed DeGrange (D)           Dist. 32            Anne Arundel County                             410-841-3593
Senator Janet Greenip (R)           Dist. 33            Anne Arundel County                             410-841-3568
Senator Nancy Jacobs (R)          Dist. 34             Cecil & Harford Counties                         410-841-3158
Senator Bob Hooper (R)              Dist. 35            Harford County                                       410-841-3603
Senator EJ Pipkin (R )                Dist. 36             Caroline,Cecil,Kent, & QA Cnts            410-841-3639
Senator Richard Colburn (R)        Dist. 37             Caroline,Dorchester. Talbot & Wicomico 410-841-3590
Senator Lowell Stoltzfus (R)        Dist. 38            Somerset, Wicomico& Worcester Cnts    410-841-3645

Mailing address:

Honorable ____(ALL)________     (except) Honorable Leo E.Green
James Senate Office Building                  Miller Senate Building
100 College Avenue                                 11 Bladen Street
Annapolis,MD 21401-1991                      Annapolis,MD 21401-1991

ABORTION, PARENTAL RIGHTS AND WOMAN’S RIGHTS

Four bills, two WINs, two LOSES and we keep trying next year!

SB 541- Emergency Contraception Dispensing Program- To allow pharmacists to dispense “morning after pills” without prescriptions.  This is a dangerous abortion pill that young girls shouldn’t have access to over -the-counter. Defeated 21-25.
HB398-Murder and Manslaughter - Viable Fetus While not an abortion bill, it gives status to a viable fetus that is killed while still in the womb.  We would like to see this extended to “from conception”, but in “Laci Peterson” situations, this will result in a charge of double homicide.
HB699 Unlawful Termination of a Pregnancy – This is the bill that would protect babies from conception.  Defeated in committee.
HB742 Abortion - Parental Notice  - To allow a parent to know that their minor child is about to have an abortion was not even given the benefit of a committee vote.  It was buried in the Health and Government Operations Committee.

By Cheryl Wetzstein
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Girls who participate in the Best Friends abstinence program are substantially less likely to use drugs or engage in premarital sex than peers who are not in the program, a study says.
    The peer-reviewed study, published this month in the Institute for Youth Development's Adolescent & Family Health, also found extraordinary results among the Best Friends' high school participants, known as Diamond Girls.
    The Diamond Girls were more than 100 times less likely to engage in premarital sex than high school girls who were not in the program, study author Robert Lerner said yesterday.
    Mary Ann Solberg, deputy director in the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, called the findings impressive.
    "We must continue to support programs that have real outcomes -- and these are real outcomes," she said.
    The Best Friends program, in its 18th year, uses school-based curricula, fitness classes, mentoring, role models and community service to help girls in sixth through eighth grades make healthy choices during adolescence -- such as abstaining from drugs, alcohol, smoking and premarital sex. A companion program for boys, called Best Men, began in 2000.
    Best Friends, which recently won a three-year federal abstinence grant, does not teach girls about contraception.
    The Lerner study compared several years of data on Best Friends girls in the District with data from girls of the same age and in school districts that were part of the federal Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance Survey (YRBS).
    Mr. Lerner found that Best Friends girls were eight times less likely than YRBS girls to use drugs and more than six times less likely to have premarital sex -- both strong outcomes.
    Best Friends girls were more than twice as likely to not smoke and almost twice as likely to not drink alcohol as YRBS girls. More than 2,700 girls were involved in this comparison.
    At the high school level, a total of 800 YRBS girls and Diamond Girls were compared. Diamond Girls were nearly 120 times less likely to have premarital sex -- an "amazingly" high number, Mr. Lerner said. Diamond Girls were also 26 times less likely to use drugs, nearly nine times less likely to smoke and three times as likely to abstain from alcohol.
    Best Friends founder Elayne Bennett said the study provides "concrete evidence" about the effectiveness of the program. Most teens say society should provide them with a strong abstinence message, she said. "The teens get it. The young people get it. This is the message they want to have. I just wish more of the adults got it."
    However, Debra Hauser, an official with Advocates for Youth, challenged the study, saying it provided only a "snapshot" of young people who "choose to be in the Best Friends program versus those that do not."
    Adolescent & Family Health is published quarterly by the Institute for Youth Development, a nonprofit group that studies ways to help teens and families avoid alcohol, drugs, premarital sex, tobacco and violence.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O050428   Bolton foes seen as U.N. backers
 

By Bill Sammon
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The White House yesterday accused Senate Democrats of opposing reform of the scandal-plagued United Nations by blocking the nomination of John R. Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the world body.
    Meanwhile, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee predicted that the panel will confirm Mr. Bolton when it reconvenes May 12. Democrats earlier this week said their Senate leaders have not decided whether to filibuster the Bolton nomination if it is approved by the committee.
    The White House is trying to shift the debate away from Mr. Bolton and onto the United Nations itself.
    Bemoaning the "corruption" of the oil-for-food program and other scandals at the United Nations, White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters: "We believe that the United Nations could be much more effective."
    "Are you saying that Senate Democrats are opposing Bolton because they oppose U.N. reform?" a reporter asked.
    "That's what this issue boils down to," Mr. McClellan replied. "A vote for John Bolton is a vote for reform at the United Nations. A vote against him is a vote for the status quo at the United Nations."
    The remarks confirmed a White House strategy, first outlined in The Washington Times on Tuesday, to focus attention on U.N. scandals such as the oil-for-food program in Iraq and the sexual abuse of African girls by U.N. peacekeepers.
    Nonetheless, reporters continued to ask yesterday about reports that Mr. Bolton was abusive to subordinates when he served as an undersecretary to former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell.
    "These are side issues that distract from the real issue," Mr. McClellan said. "The real issue here is, are we going to move forward on reform at the United Nations or are we going to accept the status quo?"
    Although he did not confirm the substance of the accusations against Mr. Bolton, the presidential spokesman acknowledged that the nominee can be hard-nosed.
    "John Bolton is someone who brings a lot of experience and a lot of passion -- and sometimes a blunt style -- to this position," Mr. McClellan said.
    "But those are exactly the kind of qualities that are needed in an agent of change to get things done, particularly at a place like the United Nations," he added. "So we hope that the Senate will move forward quickly on his nomination."
    Sen. Richard G. Lugar, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, predicted that the panel would approve Mr. Bolton's nomination and send it to the full Senate for a vote next month.
    "We will have a vote that I believe will be favorable, and the committee will report the nomination to the floor," the Indiana Republican told reporters.
    "I'm not certain that I will know the heart of hearts of each member sitting there on May the 12th," he added. "I hope that I will have a good idea, but each will have to make up his or her mind."
    Just to be on the safe side, the White House was trying to set up a meeting between Mr. Bolton and Sen. George V. Voinovich, the Ohio Republican whose concerns about the nominee's temperament delayed the original vote, which had been scheduled for April 19.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

M050428   Most in U.S. say press is biased

ASSOCIATED PRESS
    Most Americans think press coverage is biased and negative, but say they respect journalists and trust what they read and hear.
    A national survey conducted by the Missouri School of Journalism's Center for Advanced Social Research found that 62 percent consider journalism credible, and more than half rated newspapers and television news as trustworthy.
    But 85 percent say they detect a bias in reporting. Of those, 48 percent identified the bias as liberal, 30 percent as conservative, 12 percent as both and 3 percent as "other."
    About two-thirds say journalists invade people's privacy too often, and about three-quarters say the news is too negative.
    "The consumers of American journalism respect, value and need it, but they're also skeptical about whether journalists really live up to the standards of accuracy, fairness and respect for others that we profess," says George Kennedy, a Missouri journalism professor and co-author of a study that incorporates the survey results.
    The survey found that Americans strongly support the investigative or watchdog role of the press, with 83 percent saying it is important for journalists to push for access to information even when government officials would like to keep it quiet.
    But there also was plenty of criticism. Among the poll's findings:
    •58 percent say journalists have too much influence over what happens in the world.
    •74 percent say reporters tend to favor one side over the other when covering political and social issues.
    •About half say the press tends to exaggerate problems or is too sensational in its coverage.
    •77 percent say they think a news story is sometimes killed or buried if it is embarrassing or damaging to the financial interests of a press organization.
    The survey polled 495 adults during June and July 2004 and has a margin of error of 4.4 percentage points.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L050428   House approves abortion limits
 

By Amy Fagan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The House yesterday approved a bill that would make it a federal crime to skirt a state parental-notification law by taking a minor to another state to obtain an abortion without her parents' involvement.
    "We, as parents, have a right to know what is going on in our daughters' lives," said Rep. lleana Ros-Lehtinen, the Florida Republican who sponsored the bill, adding that it would "promote strong family ties" and "help foster respect for state laws."
    The bill passed by a 270-157 vote, with 54 Democrats joining 216 Republicans in voting for the proposal against 11 Republicans, 145 Democrats and one independent.
    The Bush administration issued a statement saying it supports the bill, "which would protect the health and safety of minors."
    Democrats said Congress is intruding unfairly into family issues and said Republicans have not learned from their attempts to intervene in the case of a brain-damaged Florida woman.
    "The people of this country don't want the government intruding" in family disputes, said Rep. Louise M. Slaughter, New York Democrat.
    A narrower version of the bill has passed the House three times but died in the Senate.
    This year, Senate Republicans have made that narrower measure one of their top 10 priorities, and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Tennessee Republican, yesterday said he intends to bring it to the floor.
    An aide said this likely will happen by the summer.
    The main difference between the House-passed bill and the version the Senate will consider is that the House this year added a provision requiring doctors to give 24 hours' notice to an out-of-state minor's parents before performing an abortion.
    Supporters expect Senate Democrats to create hurdles for the narrower Senate bill. A Senate Republican aide said party leaders recently tried to start negotiating with Democrats about timing and structure for bringing the bill to the floor, but Democrats rebuffed them.
    Tessa Hafen, spokeswoman for Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, said no one has talked to Mr. Reid's office about the bill and it is premature to say what Democrats will do.
    Doug Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee, said the measure probably will pass. He cited a Quinnipiac University poll last month that found 75 percent of the public favors parental notification before a minor can get an abortion.
    Sen. Barbara Boxer, California Democrat, called the legislation "a put-your-grandmother-in-jail bill."
    Democrats argue that sometimes a girl cannot confide in violent or abusive parents and must seek help from a grandparent, sibling or pastor, any of whom could be subject to criminal charges under the bill if they transport her across state lines in circumvention of a home-state law requiring parental approval or parental notification.
    Exceptions would be made if the girl's life is in danger or if the adult reasonably thought the home-state law was followed.
    House Democrats unsuccessfully tried to exempt taxicab drivers, bus drivers and medical personnel from the bill, but their amendment was defeated by a vote of 179-245. A second amendment to exempt grandparents and members of the clergy was defeated by a 177-252 vote.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L050428   Stem-cell research upsets Catholic doctors
 

By Joyce Howard Price
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Catholic doctors in the United States are morally more disturbed by embryonic-stem-cell research than by other practices opposed by their Church, such as homosexuality and birth control.
    About a fourth of those who identified themselves as Catholics said they found embryonic-stem-cell research to be morally acceptable, according to a national survey of 1,536 physicians.
    Yet, 87 percent of the Catholic doctors said they would prescribe birth-control pills, and nearly 90 percent said they support the distribution of condoms in developing nations to prevent HIV transmission.
    The findings were from a survey conducted last week by HCD Research Inc. of Flemington, N.J., and the Muhlenberg College Institute of Public Opinion in Allentown, Pa., as part of an investigation into the social, political and economic issues confronting the U.S. health care system.
    When asked whether homosexuality is morally acceptable, approximately half -- 49 percent -- of the Catholic doctors responded in the affirmative. Overall, 55 percent of physicians had that view. The proportion of approving Catholics was the largest of any Christian denomination.
    Seventy-nine percent of Jewish doctors, 45 percent of non-Baptist Protestants, 34 percent of Orthodox Christians, 23 percent of Muslims and 10 percent of Baptists said they did not have moral qualms about homosexuality as a "lifestyle choice."
    "Across religions, very few doctors (2 percent) said they would most likely make difficult moral decisions on the basis of the teachings of their religious leaders," said Glenn Kessler, co-founder and managing partner of HCD Research.
    The Internet poll found that more than 60 percent of all doctors chiefly would rely on their conscience, while nearly 37 percent said they would rely on their conscience as well as religious teachings.
    "For most of these controversial issues, physicians were in general agreement," Mr. Kessler said.
    "However, we see considerable differences of opinion on the issues relating to embryonic-stem-cell research" and homosexuality, "which may correlate directly with their religious beliefs," he added.
    Among the 327 doctors in the survey who said they are Catholics, 27 percent found embryonic-stem-cell research to be morally acceptable. Among Baptist doctors, the support was 22 percent.
    Overall, 49 percent of doctors surveyed said they find such research to be morally acceptable. The supporters included 75 percent of Jewish doctors, 46 percent of non-Baptist Protestants, 38 percent of Orthodox Christians, 34 percent of Muslims, 50 percent of Hindus, 47 percent of those who said they were of "other" religions and 66 percent of those who said they had no religion.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

H050427   Texas House OKs marriage ballot measure
 

By Hugh Aynesworth
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

DALLAS -- The Texas House has voted overwhelmingly to solidify the state's ban on same-sex "marriage," passing a bill designed to amend the state constitution.
    The Republican-controlled House voted 101-29 Monday to allow voters in November to decide whether the state constitution should specifically ban same-sex "marriages" and civil unions.
    The bill, offered by Rep. Warren Chisum, Pampa Republican, easily reached the two-thirds majority needed to pass. Speaker Tom Craddick, who seldom votes, added the 101st yes vote. Eight members abstained.
    "I think [marriage] deserves the highest level of protection," Mr. Chisum said.
    "We as Texans believe marriage is between one man and one woman," said Rep. Carter Casteel, New Braunfels Republican.
    Mr. Chisum said the language was adjusted to strengthen the legislation against a court challenge. Some states are facing litigation against bans on same-sex "marriages."
    "I think it's something that is going around in different areas," Mr. Chisum said about legal challenges to marriage resolutions. "We can prevent that by putting this into the constitution, by placing that question in front of the people of the state."
    The House must vote on the bill again before sending it to the state Senate, where two-thirds approval is required for inclusion on the November ballot.
    Texas enacted legislation in 2003 that nullifies any "marriage" or civil union between two people of the same sex.
    Texas would become the 15th state to add the ban to its constitution. Three other states await a vote on marriage resolutions.
    Critics call the measure "window dressing" and say it might conflict with common-law marriage rules.
    "I want it clearly understood," said Rep. Sylvester Turner, Houston Democrat, "that we are not doing any more with this amendment than what exists now in the state of Texas." He abstained from voting.
    Rep. Rafael Anchia, Dallas Democrat, said the measure "confuses our equal rights amendment" that already is part of the state constitution.
    After nearly three hours of often-heated debate, the sponsor, Mr. Chisum, attempted to calm tempers. "If I have offended anybody, you have my apologies," he said. "I love each and every one of you."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L050427   Frist stands firm on up-down vote
 

By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Majority Leader Bill Frist said yesterday that he will not compromise on the "constitutional principle" of giving judicial nominees final up-or-down confirmation votes on the Senate floor.
    "Are we going to step back from that principle?" the Tennessee Republican asked reporters. "The answer to that is 'no.'"
    Democrats have been suggesting a compromise by which they would grant final votes for some of President Bush's filibustered nominees in exchange for Republicans' forgoing the so-called "nuclear option" -- a parliamentary procedure that would ban filibusters against judicial nominees.
    "There is a way to avoid the nuclear shutdown, and I'm working with my colleagues to put that plan in place,' Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, said earlier this week. "As part of any resolution, the nuclear option must be off the table."
    Mr. Reid declined to provide any specifics about his plan to end the standoff.
    Similar negotiations have been under way for months, and Republicans have said they would not budge on the constitutional issue of giving judges final up-or-down confirmation votes as they say the Founding Fathers clearly intended.
    "The principle of getting fair up-or-down votes on judicial nominees is fundamental to the discussions going on among members and at the leadership level between Senator Reid and me," said Mr. Frist, adding that he will continue negotiating with Mr. Reid.
    Among the few Republicans openly discussing a compromise that would refuse some Bush nominees is Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter.
    "If enough of the president's nominees can be confirmed, we may be able to deflate the controversy without a vote on the constitutional/nuclear option," the Pennsylvanian said last week on the Senate floor.
    Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, said the showdown is more about future vacancies on the Supreme Court than the 10 federal appeals court nominees who have been filibustered.
    "Where this is headed is in the direction of 41 members of the Senate being able to dictate to any president who may be on the Supreme Court or a circuit court," he said. "That is a bad idea."
    In the midst of the talk about compromise, Mr. Reid's press office issued a release criticizing California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown, who was nominated to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia nearly two years ago.
    Mr. Reid pointed to Justice Brown's comments during a speech Sunday in Darien, Conn. According to an account of the speech in the Stamford Advocate, Justice Brown said that although tolerance toward others is positive, multiculturalism has turned against any religion with an absolute sense of right and wrong.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L050427   Judicial battle seen as attack on faith
 

By Donald Lambro
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The Senate's escalating war over President Bush's judicial nominees has become a fight over the role of religious faith and moral values in the courts. It could determine the outcome of bitterly divisive legal issues such as abortion, pornography and euthanasia.
    Religious conservatives say liberal opposition to a rule-changing attempt by the Republicans to end the filibuster against Mr. Bush's judicial nominees represents an all-out attack on putting "people of faith" on the federal bench.
    "We see this as a defensive action in response to a growing antagonism towards nominees who happen to be conservative in their judicial philosophy and devout churchgoing Christians," says Jayd Henricks, spokesman for the Family Research Council.
    "It is not that we are interested in promoting a person of faith, but rather protecting these individuals' rights to believe deeply on religious matters," Mr. Henricks says.
    Liberal organizations that want to preserve the Senate filibuster rule, however, are defining the conflict in terms of safeguarding "religious tolerance and diversity."
    Ralph G. Neas, president of People for the American Way, a major combatant on the other side of the debate, says the group's political battle is with "radical right leaders who suggest that you can't be a good Christian unless you share their political views. We need to seek bipartisan cooperation, not inflame political divisions with religious manipulation."
    But as the senatorial rules debate heated up on Capitol Hill, a new front in the battle was opening up at the grass-roots level as conservative and liberal advocacy groups began promoting their positions in radio and television ad campaigns that targeted senators in key states.
    People for the American Way has been running radio and TV ads defending the filibuster rules as part of a $5 million ad campaign in conjunction with a coalition of other liberal groups. The ads don't mention the core issue in the rules debate -- in which Democrats argue that Mr. Bush's nominees must clear a preliminary 60-vote parliamentary hurdle before proceeding to an up-or-down vote.
    Instead, the ads focus on religion or questions of "checks and balances." One ad, which the People for the American Way first ran 25 years ago during the 1980 presidential campaign, charges that religious conservatives seeking to overturn the filibuster rule were "manipulating religion for political gain ... threatening to destroy our system of checks and balances."
    Mr. Neas' group has used its attacks on the religious right to raise millions of dollars over the years to help elect Democrats. The organization's political action committee donated $177,802 in the 2004 election, 98 percent of it to Democratic candidates and their party's national campaign committees.
    On the other side of the battle line, the conservative group Judicial Confirmation Network is running a TV ad that condemns "arrogant judges" who are "ignoring the Constitution and writing their own laws."
    These judges, the ad says, "want God out of the Pledge of Allegiance" and have ruled that "child pornography is protected by the Constitution." The ad ends by urging viewers to call or write their senators and "tell them to support a fair [up-or-down majority] vote on judges."
    Meanwhile, moderate Democrats have warned their party that attacking religious Americans over cultural and social issues in the political arena can only hurt the party's chances of expanding its base in the next election.
    "There's a reasonably strong consensus now that an inability to address cultural concerns is one -- not the only, but one -- of the reasons Democrats are struggling to build an electoral majority," the Democratic Leadership Council said after last year's elections.
    A postelection poll by Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg found that "Bush waverers" -- voters who backed Mr. Bush but could have been persuaded to vote for Democratic candidate John Kerry -- largely made their decision based on moral values, an issue that Mr. Kerry avoided in his campaign and that Mr. Bush made a part of his standard stump speech.
    Last week, the council released an analysis that admonished Democrats to pay more attention to the concerns of religious voters and parents who have become increasingly worried about the "morally corrosive forces in the culture."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L050427   Panel wants stem-cell ethics guidelines

ASSOCIATED PRESS
    A government advisory group yesterday proposed national ethics guidelines for research on human embryonic stem cells and recommended that research institutions establish oversight committees to enforce them.
    "A standard set of requirements for deriving, storing, distributing and using embryonic-stem-cell lines -- one to which the entire U.S. scientific community adheres -- is the best way for this research to move forward," said Richard O. Hynes, professor of cancer research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
    Mr. Hynes is co-chairman of the committee that prepared the report for the National Academies, an independent organization chartered by Congress to advise the government on scientific matters.
    Embryonic stem cells form in the first few days of a developing embryo and are capable of becoming any type of cell in the body. Researchers hope they can find ways to use these cells to cure a variety of illnesses, but the research has been contentious because the embryo is destroyed in collecting the cells.
    President Bush banned federal funding for stem-cell research except for existing cell lines, but private funding is continuing some research.
    The report urged that oversight committees be established in addition to the institutional boards that review stem-cell research.
    Apart from specialists in biology and stem-cell research, the committees should include law and ethics specialists as well as representatives of the public, the report said.
    Among the recommended guidelines:
    •Donors must give their consent before an embryo could be used to produce stem cells, and they should be informed that they have the right to withdraw their consent at any point before a stem-cell line is derived. In addition, donors should not be paid.
    •Consent forms should inform the donor that embryos will be destroyed in the process of deriving stem cells and that the resulting cell lines may be kept for many years.
    •Donors should be informed that research involving their stem cells may have commercial potential, but they will not share in any financial benefit.
    •An oversight committee should keep a registry of stem-cell lines banked at an institution, which should include a proof of informed consent, a medical history of the donors and a characterization of any genetic markers on the cell lines.
    •Repositories of stem-cell lines need a secure coding system to protect the identity of donors.
    •No animal embryonic stem cells should be transplanted into a human embryo, and approval by a review committee should be secured before any human embryonic stem cells are put into an animal. No human embryonic stem cells should be put into nonhuman primates.
    The report also called for a national independent organization to periodically review stem-cell research and determine whether guidelines need to be updated.
    The report was funded by the National Academies with additional support from the Ellison Medical Foundation and the Greenwall Foundation.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050428   Lusty speech
    Former Vice President Al Gore yesterday blamed Republican "lust for one-party domination" for the Republican Party's campaign to change Senate rules on filibustering judicial nominees, and he assailed what he called religious zealots for driving the effort.
    Wading into the political fight that has roiled the Senate, the 2000 Democratic presidential candidate and former senator from Tennessee said that altering the rules would result in a breakdown in the separation of powers, the Associated Press reports.
    "What makes it so dangerous for our country is their willingness to do serious damage to our American democracy in order to satisfy their lust for one-party domination of all three branches of government," Mr. Gore said of the Republican Party in a speech. "They seek nothing less than absolute power."
    He lashed out at two conservative organizations -- the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family -- that have been active in demanding an end to judicial filibusters.
    "This aggressive new strain of right-wing religious zealotry is actually a throwback to the intolerance that led to the creation of America in the first place," Mr. Gore said as many in the audience stood and applauded. The speech was sponsored by the liberal group MoveOn's political action committee.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050428   TEXAS   School board adds Bible class as elective
    ODESSA -- The school board in this West Texas town voted unanimously to add a Bible class to its high school curriculum.
    Hundreds of people, most of them supporters of the proposal, packed the board meeting Tuesday night. More than 6,000 Odessa residents had signed a petition supporting the class.
    Barring any hurdles, the class should be added to the curriculum in fall 2006 and taught as a history or literature course. The school board still must develop a curriculum, which board member Floy Hinson said should be open for public review.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050427   Bypassing bishops
    The president of the Cardinal Newman Society is "blowing the whistle" on Catholic colleges that have invited politicians such as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to deliver commencement addresses and receive honorary degrees this graduation season because their public positions run contrary to Catholic teaching.
    "We are blowing the whistle on any Catholic college that blatantly disrespects the bishops by defying their clear command and teaching," says Patrick J. Reilly, president of the national organization dedicated to the renewal of Catholic identity at America's 220 Catholic colleges and universities.
    "After decades of scandal at secularizing colleges, last June, the bishops drew a line in the sand," he says. "No college that deliberately crosses that line deserves the label 'Catholic' or the support of the faithful -- most especially monetary support."
    In addition to Mrs. Clinton, whom he labels a "strident advocate" of legalized abortion, embryonic stem-cell research and contraception (the New York Democrat is set to speak at Marymount Manhattan College), he cites scheduled commencement speakers such as veteran White House journalist Helen Thomas, former New York Times reporter Peter Steinfels and former Washington Gov. Gary Locke.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

M050427   Phony poll
    "ABC and The Washington Post touted how a new poll found two-thirds opposed to a rule change to end Democratic filibusters of judicial nominees, but the language of the question led to the media's desired answer," the Media Research Center's Brent Baker writes at www.mediaresearch.org.
    " 'An ABC News poll has found little support for changing the Senate's rules to help the president's judicial nominees win confirmation,' 'World News Tonight' anchor Charles Gibson trumpeted Monday night.
    "The Washington Post's lead front-page headline, over a Tuesday story on the poll, declared: 'Filibuster Rule Change Opposed.' But the questions in the poll failed to point out the unprecedented use of a filibuster to block nominees who have majority support while they forwarded the Democratic talking point that 'the Senate has confirmed 35 federal appeals court judges nominated by Bush' and painted rules changes as an effort 'to make it easier for the Republicans to confirm Bush's judicial nominees,' not as a way to overcome Democratic obstructionism."

Phony poll II
    " 'Filibuster Rule Change Opposed' is the headline of the lead story in [yesterday's] Washington Post," James Taranto notes at www.opinionjournal.com.
    "The paper reports on a poll of 1,007 'randomly selected adults,' " Mr. Taranto said, adding that the relevant questions are No. 34 and No. 36:
    34. The Senate has confirmed 35 federal appeals court judges nominated by Bush, while Senate Democrats have blocked 10 others. Do you think the Senate Democrats are right to block these nominations? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?
    Result: Right 48 percent (22 percent strongly, 26 percent somewhat), wrong 36 percent (17 percent strongly, 19 percent somewhat).
    36. Would you support or oppose changing Senate rules to make it easier for the Republicans to confirm Bush's judicial nominees?
    Results: Support 26 percent, oppose 66 percent.
    Mr. Taranto comments: "Read these questions carefully and you'll see that the Post's headline is false. The poll not only doesn't use the word filibuster; it doesn't even describe the procedure. The way the question is worded, the Democrats could have 'blocked' the nominations by the normal method of voting them down -- and there is no reason to think that 'randomly selected adults' would have been paying enough attention to know the difference. (Tellingly, the poll asks how closely participants have been following the Tom DeLay kerfuffle -- only 36 percent say even 'somewhat' closely -- but does not ask the same question about the judge issue.)
    "The introduction to the question should have been worded: '... Senate Democrats have used a procedure called the filibuster to block a vote on 10 others.' As it is, this poll is either a very sloppy bit of work or a deliberate attempt to mislead the Post's readers -- including members of the U.S. Senate."

    Phony poll III
    In a memorandum to Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, Republican pollster Jan van Lohuizen questioned The Washington Post's methodology in a poll that supposedly showed widespread opposition to ending judicial filibusters.
    "The Post's own results are internally inconsistent. On one hand, nearly half of voters disapprove of Senate Democrats' handling of the nominations. At the same time, we're asked to believe nearly two-thirds of voters agree with the Democratic position," Mr. van Lohuizen said in the memo, which was obtained by The Washington Times.
    "Our own results clearly show that voters object to procedural stalling and that 80 percent want an up or down vote on the president's nominees. Americans want the process to work," according to the memo.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

M050427   Ratings crash
    "The latest radio ratings are in, and they show continued bad news for Air America, the liberal talk-radio network featuring Al Franken, Randi Rhodes, Janeane Garofolo, and others," Byron York writes at National Review Online (www.nationalreview.com).
    "While it is difficult to pinpoint Air America's ratings nationally -- it is on the air in about 50 stations across the country, and has been on some of them for just the last few months -- it is possible to measure the network's performance in the nation's number-one market, New York City," Mr. York said.
    "The new Arbitron ratings for Winter 2005, which covers January, February, and March, show that WLIB, the station which carries Air America in New York, won a 1.2-percent share of all listeners 12 years and older. That is down one tenth of one point from the station's 1.3 percent share in Winter 2004, the last period when it aired its old format of Caribbean music and talk. ...
    "Between the hours of 10 A.M. and 3 P.M., the period that includes Al Franken's program, Air America drew a 1.4-percent share of the New York audience aged 25 to 54 in Winter 2005. That number is the latest in a nearly year-long decline. In spring of 2004, Air America's first quarter on the air, it drew a 2.2-percent share of the audience. That rose to 2.3 percent in the Summer of 2004, then fell to 1.6 percent in the Fall of 2004, and is now 1.4 percent -- Air America's lowest-ever quarterly rating in that time and demographic slot.
    "The ratings also show WABC radio, which airs Rush Limbaugh, consistently beating Air America in New York City even though Franken had at one time claimed to be beating the conservative host there."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050426   Frist angers conservatives by distancing from DeLay
 

By Ralph Z. Hallow
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Conservatives yesterday expressed anger at Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist for what they described as his swipe at House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.
    Mr. DeLay, Texas Republican, said last month that judges who denied appeals by Terri Schiavo's relatives who were trying to keep the brain-damaged Florida woman alive must "answer for their behavior."
    Mr. Frist, Tennessee Republican, did not mention Mr. DeLay by name in a taped address to a Sunday rally of Christian conservatives, but disavowed "retaliation" against federal judges.
    "When we think judicial decisions are outside mainstream American values, we will say so," Mr. Frist said. "But we must also be clear that the balance of power among all three branches requires respect -- not retaliation. I won't go along with that."
    Press accounts described Mr. Frist's remarks as a reference to Mr. DeLay, an interpretation the Senate leader's spokeswoman did not deny yesterday.
    House Republicans reacted angrily.
    "I hope [Mr. Frist's] address was written by an intern, but I fear that it was written by his legal staff," said Rep. Steve King, Iowa Republican.
    "What Bill Frist said shows where his heart really is -- he is not a part of our conservative movement," Rep. Patrick T. McHenry, North Carolina Republican, said in reaction to Mr. Frist's speech.
    "Frist would like to have the loyalty Tom DeLay has from the conservative movement, including Christian conservatives, but he can't get it because Tom DeLay is a true conservative who came out of the movement to lead the House," Mr. McHenry said.
    Sunday's rally, organized by the Washington-based Family Research Council, was part of an effort to build support among Christian conservatives for President Bush's judicial appointees who are blocked by Senate Democrats. Speakers at the rally called on Republicans to change Senate rules to limit the use of the filibuster to block judicial appointments.
    Mr. Frist, considered a likely contender for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008, told those attending the "Justice Sunday" event that it is not "radical" to ask that the Senate give judicial appointees an up-or-down vote.
    Activists say Mrs. Schiavo's case highlights the judiciary's role in right-to-life issues. When the woman died of starvation March 31, Mr. DeLay blamed "an arrogant, out-of-control, unaccountable judiciary." Four days later, Mr. Frist said: "I believe we have a fair and independent judiciary today. I respect that."
    Conservatives said Mr. Frist was courting the evangelical Christian vote while distancing himself from Mr. DeLay.
    "We won't continue to build this conservative movement if we have one leader attacking another leader," said Free Congress Foundation President Paul M. Weyrich. "I really would like to know Senator Frist's version of a fair and independent judiciary."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L050426   Undecided Specter could doom GOP
 

By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Senate Republicans are expressing concerns that Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter will defy party leaders and oppose the so-called "nuclear option" to end Democratic filibusters against President Bush's judicial nominees.
    The Pennsylvania Republican -- who was nearly passed over for the committee chairmanship because of his independent ways -- says publicly that he is undecided about whether he'll vote with Majority Leader Bill Frist and Republicans to limit filibusters of judicial nominations.
    But a Senate speech last week in which Mr. Specter advised senators to ignore "party loyalty" has some Republicans convinced that he might break party ranks -- a move that could doom Republican support for overriding the filibusters.
    "He all but said he would buck Republican leadership on this," one Republican Judiciary Committee aide said.
    Republicans hold a 55-seat majority in the Senate. Other Republicans, including Sen. John W. Warner of Virginia and Sen. John McCain of Arizona, already have expressed doubts about changing the rules to limit filibusters of judicial nominees. If Mr. Specter sides with Democrats, Republicans would be denied a crucial vote needed to make the rule change and the chairman's prestige would be added to the Democratic side of the dispute.
    In a lengthy floor speech Thursday, Mr. Specter lamented the stalemate in the Senate between filibustering Democrats and Republicans who are threatening to use a parliamentary procedure -- which they call the "constitutional option" -- to prohibit such filibusters against judicial nominees.
    "On these critical issues with these cataclysmic consequences, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to study the issues and to vote their consciences independent of party dictation," Mr. Specter said.
    He closed his 45-minute speech by invoking the history of the Senate as the world's "greatest deliberative body."
    "Thought requires independence, not response to party loyalty or any other form of dictation," he said. "The lessons of our best days as a nation should serve as a model today for senators to vote their consciences on the confirmation of judges and on the constitutional/nuclear option."
    His admonition was seen by some Republicans as running counter to efforts by Mr. Frist to build support for the rule change. Republicans objected to Mr. Specter's suggesting that the proposed change is comparable to the Democratic filibusters.
    "He treats them as if they are equal -- equally bad," said one Republican aide. "He made no distinction between unprecedented, unconstitutional filibusters and a precedented, constitutional ruling by the Senate."
    Mr. Specter said yesterday that he is working hard to get Mr. Bush's nominees confirmed and that he is trying to break the impasse without drastic measures.
    "Let Republicans be convinced it's the right vote and that's fine," he said. "I can't raise hell with Democrats for their party straitjacket if the Republicans are doing the same thing."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L050426   Reid offers GOP a deal on stalled court nominees

ASSOCIATED PRESS
    The Senate's top Democrat has indicated in private talks with his Republican counterpart a willingness to allow votes on two of the seven appeals court nominations that Democrats have filibustered during this Congress.
    But the deal on two nominees to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals is only offered as part of a broader compromise requiring Republicans to foreswear the "nuclear option" to limit judicial filibusters, officials said yesterday.
    In exchange for clearing Richard Griffin and David McKeague for approval, officials said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, also wants Republicans to withdraw a third appointee to the same circuit, Henry Saad, and replace him with someone preferred by Michigan's two Democratic senators.
    Mr. Reid also remains staunchly opposed to four conservative candidates for other appellate circuits -- Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown, William G. Myers III and William H. Pryor Jr. -- the officials said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the confidential nature of the talks between Mr. Reid and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050425   Frist takes filibuster fight to Christians
 

By Ralph Z. Hallow
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Sen. Majority Leader Bill Frist yesterday appealed directly to Christian conservatives to pressure Senate Democrats to quit blocking confirmation votes on President Bush's judicial nominees.
    "My Democratic counterpart, [Senate Minority Leader Harry] Reid, calls me a radical Republican, [but] I don't think it's radical to expect senators to fulfill their constitutional responsibilities," Mr. Frist said in an address recorded for showing at a Christian rally headlined as "Justice Sunday -- Stopping the Filibuster Against People of Faith."
    His speech was telecast nationwide and heard on radio stations around the country as part of a rally at Highview Baptist Church in Louisville, Ky., organized by the Family Research Council (FRC).
    He said that if Mr. Reid, Nevada Democrat, "continues to obstruct the process, we will consider what opponents call the 'nuclear option.' Only in the Senate could it be considered a devastating option to allow a vote. Most places call that democracy," Mr. Frist said.
    The proposed rules change -- Republicans prefer to call it the "constitutional option" -- would bar the use of the filibuster only for judicial nominees, not for any other Senate business, the Tennessee Republican said.
    Mr. Frist did not mention religion in his address, but FRC President Tony Perkins said the goal of the rally was to "reach as many people as possible and to engage [traditional] values votes in the all-important issue of reining in our out-of-control courts and putting a halt to the use of filibusters against people of faith."
    Conservatives have accused Democrats of blocking judges who have strong religious beliefs. Liberals have criticized Mr. Frist for addressing the gathering. One conservative leader said Mr. Frist's speech at the FRC rally was a bid to garner support for a planned 2008 presidential campaign.
    "Frist intends to run for the Republican presidential nomination," said Free Congress Foundation President Paul M. Weyrich. "He knows that the values voters are a very important component of the Republican coalition and he intends to identify with them."
    Mr. Weyrich saw Mr. Frist's emphasis on ending the judicial filibuster as "a good signal because it means he has got to be serious in demonstrating" his willingness to change Senate rules if his attempts to reach a compromise with Senate Democrats fails.
    "If he delivers on this nuclear option and Bush's judges are confirmed, he will be a hero in conservative circles," Mr. Weyrich said. "If he fails to deliver, his presidential ambitions are down the drain. It is as simple as that."
    In his speech, Mr. Frist addressed the concerns expressed by some in his party about suspending the filibuster.
    "Now some Republicans -- even some conservatives -- don't think we should press the issue on requiring votes on judicial nominees," he said. "They're concerned that in the future Republicans won't be able to use this same device to obstruct Democratic nominees. Well, that may be true, but if what Democrats are doing is wrong today, it won't be right for Republicans to do the same thing tomorrow."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L050425   GOP has votes for 'nuclear option,' McConnell says
 

By Audrey Hudson
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell said yesterday that Republicans have enough votes to invoke the "nuclear option" to limit Democrats' ability to stall by filibuster consideration of President Bush's nominees for federal appeals courts.
    "I never announce my whip count. But I'm telling you, there's no doubt in my mind -- and I'm a pretty good counter of votes -- that we have the votes we need," the Kentucky Republican said. "And that step will be taken sometime in the near future at the determination of the majority leader."
    Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, Connecticut Democrat, said it is a "huge mistake" to change the filibuster rule.
    "This rule is important as well because it forces Democrats and Republicans to work together, to come to consensus. If you abandon this rule, then you'll find even more partisanship, in my view, in the United States Senate," he told interviewers on CBS' "Face The Nation."
    Mr. Dodd "warned" Republicans that changing the rule could allow Democrats to stack the federal judiciary in the future.
    "I wonder if people in some of the states in the South, for instance, are going to be terribly happy when a Democrat president, a Democratic president sitting there, virtually deciding for him- or herself who the federal judges will be out of that state, because you'll no longer have to consult with the senators from those states, as you do today."
    Filibusters -- debate that can be shut off only by 60 or more votes -- have been used by Democrats to block 10 of Mr. Bush's judicial nominees.
    Jim Manley, spokesman for Nevada Democratic Sen. Harry Reid, questioned whether Mr. McConnell has enough Republican votes to limit debate and force an up-or-down vote.
    "No one knows for sure what the vote will be, other than that it will be very, very close," Mr. Manley said.
    If the filibuster is prevented, Mr. Reid has threatened to retaliate by slowing down and blocking legislative efforts in the Senate.
    Sen. Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania Republican and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer" that Republicans and Democrats still can find a compromise. Mr. Specter urged his colleagues to find a compromise.
    "I think, if we voted our consciences, we wouldn't have filibusters and we wouldn't have a nuclear option," Mr. Specter said.
    Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, told "Fox News Sunday" that Democrats have instituted a religious test for judicial nominees and are blocking those who might oppose abortion.
    "We did not interject religion into this process. The Democratic senators did. What this boils down to is that the philosophy of that minority of liberal senators in the United States Senate has been repudiated in almost election after election, almost every recent election," Mr. Perkins said.
    "And so, in order to shape the culture and drive public policy, they're holding on to the courts, and they're using the filibuster as if it's a junkyard dog to keep people from invading their territory. And that's wrong. These candidates deserve an up-or-down vote."
    His organization sponsored a telecast last night featuring Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Tennessee Republican, arguing in favor of ending the Democratic filibusters.
    Sen. Richard J. Durbin, Illinois Democrat, called Mr. Perkins' claims "political" and said the Constitution does not allow a religious test.
    "But many people have positions they've taken on political issues based on faith. Now, where do you draw that line?" he asked. "We need to ask about those issues because they're going to confront every judicial nominee, and there may be disagreement about their positions. But if their defense is always, 'You can't ask me, you can't object to me if my particular political position is based on faith,' then it's the end of the debate."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050425   Justices argue international law
 

By Guy Taylor
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia, Sandra Day O'Connor and Stephen G. Breyer clashed last week over the role of international law and foreign judges at a rare group discussion in Washington.
    At the forum, broadcast on C-SPAN television last week, Justice Breyer appeared the most sympathetic to justices citing international law and foreign court decisions, saying the high court is faced with "more and more cases" in which the laws of other countries are relevant.
    "Where there is disagreement is how to use the law of other nations where we have some of those very open-ended interpretations of the word 'liberty' or 'cruel and unusual punishment,'" he said.
    "It's appropriate in some instances to look to how other courts might have decided similar issues," although laws of other countries "do not bind us by any means."
    Justice Scalia said "foreign law is totally irrelevant" on most issues, such as the original meaning of the Constitution or what Americans now see as fundamental rights.
    "It doesn't show what the Constitution originally meant, and it doesn't show what is fundamentally important to Americans today," he said. "It shows what's fundamentally important to somebody else today."
    Justice O'Connor, in her first public remarks on the issue, called the debate over the role of foreign law "much ado about nothing."
    "There are areas where we look to foreign law to interpret treaties that other nations and we have joined," she said. "Of course we look to foreign law."
    Although it may not help to consult foreign law in interpreting the meaning of the First Amendment, she said, it does not hurt to be aware of what other countries have done when weighing such evolving concepts as "cruel and unusual punishment."
    In early March, the justices made international precedent an issue by striking down the death penalty for juveniles. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy cited the "stark reality that the United States is the only country in the world? that executes juveniles.
    Justice Breyer was among the majority in the ruling. Justices Scalia and O'Connor, along with Justice Clarence Thomas, dissented.
    The forum at the National Archives Building, which also was sponsored by the National Constitution Center and the Aspen Institute, was moderated by Tim Russert of NBC News.
    The three justices agreed that televising oral arguments before the high court is a bad idea.
    Justice Scalia said it would "misinform the public rather than inform" it. For every person who watches an oral argument on C-SPAN from gavel to gavel, "ten thousand will see 15-second takeouts on the network news, which I guarantee you will be uncharacteristic."
    Justice O'Connor agreed. The same-day release of audiotapes of oral arguments, which the high court has done for major cases in recent years, on the other hand "has worked pretty well."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

H050425   ARIZONA   Navajos outlaw same-sex 'marriage'
    WINDOW ROCK -- The Navajo Nation on Friday outlawed same-sex "marriages" on its reservation.
    The Tribal Council voted unanimously in favor of legislation that restricts a recognized union to that between a man and a woman, and prohibits plural marriages as well as marriages between close relatives.
    "Men and women have been created in a sacred manner. We need to honor this," said Delegate Harriet Becenti.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050425   P.C. scholars take Christ out of B.C.
 

By Michael Gormley
ASSOCIATED PRESS

ALBANY, N.Y. -- In certain precincts of a world encouraged to embrace differences, Christ is out.
    The terms "B.C." and "A.D." increasingly are shunned by certain scholars.
    Educators and historians say schools from North America to Australia have been changing the terms "Before Christ," or B.C., to "Before Common Era," or B.C.E., and "anno Domini" (Latin for "in the year of the Lord") to "Common Era." In short, they're referred to as B.C.E. and C.E.
    The life of Christ still divides the epochs, but the change has stoked the ire of Christians and religious leaders who see it as an attack on a social and political order that has been in place for centuries.
    For more than a century, Hebrew lessons have used B.C.E. and C.E., with C.E. sometimes referring to Christian Era.
    This raises the question: Can old and new coexist in harmony, or must one give way to the other to reflect changing times and attitudes?
    The terms B.C. and A.D. have clear Catholic roots. Dionysius Exiguus, an abbot in Rome, devised them as a way to determine the date for Easter for Pope St. John I. The terms were continued under the Gregorian Calendar, created in 1582 under Pope Gregory XIII.
    Although most calendars are based on an epoch or person, B.C. and A.D. have always presented a particular problem for historians: There is no year zero; there's a 33-year gap, reflecting the life of Christ, dividing the epochs. Critics say that's additional reason to replace the Christian-based terms.
    "When Jews or Muslims have to put Christ in the middle of our calendar ... that's difficult for us," said Steven M. Brown, dean of the William Davidson Graduate School of Jewish Education at the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York City.
    The new terms were introduced by academics in the 1990s in public elementary and high school classrooms.
    In New York, the terms are entering public classrooms through textbooks and worksheets, but B.C.E. and C.E. are not part of the state's official curriculum, and there is no plan to debate the issue, said state Education Department spokesman Jonathan Burman.
    "The standard textbooks primarily used in New York use the terms A.D. and B.C.," Mr. Burman said. Schools, however, may choose to use the new terms, although B.C. and A.D. will continue to be used in the state Regents exams, many of which are required for high school graduation.
    Candace de Russy, a national writer on education and Catholic issues and a trustee for the State University of New York, doesn't accept the notion of fence-straddling.
    "The use of B.C.E. and C.E. is not mere verbal tweaking; rather it is integral to the leftist language police -- a concerted attack on the religious foundation of our social and political order," she said.
    For centuries, B.C. and A.D. were used in public schools and universities, and in historical and most theological research. Some historians and college instructors started using the new forms as a less Christ-centric alternative.
    "I think it's pretty common now," said Gary B. Nash, director of the National Center for History in the Schools. "Once you take a global approach, it makes sense not to make a dating system applicable only to a relative few."
    But not everyone takes that pluralistic view.
    "I find it distressing; I don't like it," said Gilbert Sewall, director of the American Textbook Council, which finds politics intruding on instruction. He said changing terms accepted for centuries because of a current social movement could threaten other long-held principles.
    Mr. Nash said most major textbook companies have adopted the new terms, which are part of the national world history standards. But even those standards have been called into question.
    In a 2000 national resolution, the Southern Baptist Convention condemned the new terms as "the result of the secularization, anti-supernaturalism, religious pluralism, and political correctness pervasive in our society."
    "Is that some sort of the political correctness?" said Tim Callahan, of the Professional Association of Georgia Educators, an independent group with 60,000 educator members. "It sounds pretty silly to me."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

M050427   Wary Democrats discover a severe 'parents gap'
 

By Donald Lambro
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

An analysis by a Democratic think tank argues that Democrats are suffering from a severe "parent gap" among married people with children, who say the entertainment industry is lowering the moral standards of the country.
    The study, published last week by the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), the policy arm of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, admonishes Democrats to pay more attention to parental concerns about "morally corrosive forces in the culture," and warns that the party will not fare better with this pivotal voting bloc until they do.
    In the 2004 election, married parents supported President Bush over Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts by nearly 20 percentage points. Mr. Bush frequently talked about the importance of faith and morals in his campaign and the role that parents played in raising their children. Mr. Kerry and his party, much of whose campaign funding and political support came from liberals in the entertainment industry, rarely touched the issue.
    "Democrats will not do better with married parents until they recognize one simple truth: Parents have a beef with popular culture. As they see it, the culture is getting ever more violent, materialistic, and misogynistic, and they are losing their ability to protect their kids from morally corrosive images and messages," said the study's author, Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, co-director of the National Marriage Project of Rutgers University and a senior fellow at PPI.
    "To be credible, Democrats must acknowledge the legitimacy of parents' beef and make it unmistakably clear that they are on the parents' side," Ms. Whitehead said.
    But all too often, she said, "Democrats have been on the losing end of Republican appeals to a conservative cultural populism. Too often lately, the party does not counter these appeals but merely tries to change the subject, from cultural values to bread-and-butter issues."
    Urging Democrats to change the way they look at cultural issues, the PPI report calls on party leaders to "use the bully pulpit regularly and aggressively to identify with parents' concerns and to attack the irresponsible marketeers of violence and sleaze to young kids."
    It praised a campaign by Illinois Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich, a Democrat, to ban the sale of violent video games to anyone younger than 18 and said Democrats had to come up with similar initiatives to take "the side of parents against the marketing of graphic sex and violence to kids."
    Some Democrats, chastened by their losses in last year's elections, are beginning to test a variety of social, cultural and religious appeals that have been at the core of the Republican Party's success at the ballot box.
    Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, New York Democrat, has called on "people of good faith to find common ground" in the debate over abortion.
    She also has praised faith-based and religious organizations for promoting abstinence, noting that polls showed "the primary reason teenage girls abstain from early sexual activity is because of their religious and moral values."
    In an attempt to reach out to evangelical Christians in the Republican red states, Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, has been talking much more about values and "the culture," and sprinkling his attacks on Republicans with phrases from the Bible.
    "We need to kick the money changers out of the temple and restore moral values to America," he said last week in Florida.
    But an online survey of 11,568 Dean supporters released earlier this month by the Pew Research Center found that such religious or culturally conservative appeals may not play well with liberal Democrats.
    Among the Pew findings, 38 percent of Dean supporters polled said they had no religious affiliation, compared with 11 percent of all Americans; 91 percent supported same-sex "marriage," compared with 38 percent of all Democrats; and 80 percent said they were liberals, compared with 27 percent of all Democrats.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050428C   Disinformation . . .
 

By Thomas Sowell

The future of the legal and political system of this country may be on the line when two judicial nominees the Democrats refused to let the Senate vote on in the last Congress are being again submitted for a vote.
    Both are members of their respective state supreme courts — Justice Janice Rogers Brown from California and Justice Priscilla Owen from Texas.
    Why is this particular vote so important? In the first place, the fundamental issue is whether the Senate will be allowed to vote at all, to fulfill its constitutional duty to "advise and consent" on judicial nominees by voting them up or down.
    Democrats are dug in to prevent a vote. The big question is whether the Republicans will wimp out. Senate Republicans have the votes. But do they have the guts?
    Undoubtedly there will be a political price if the Republicans force a Senate rule change to stop Democrats from filibustering judicial nominees. But where is there anything worthwhile that does not have a price?
    This is not about two people nominated to be federal judges. It is about the whole role of judges in a self-governing republic. The voters' votes mean less and less as time passes, when judges take more and more decisions away from elected officials and substitute their own policy preferences, all under the guise of "interpreting" laws.
    Judges who decide cases on the basis of the plain meaning of the words in the laws — like Justices Brown and Owen — may be what most voters want but are anathema to liberals.
    The courts are the last hope for enacting the liberal agenda because liberals cannot get enough votes to control Congress or most state legislatures. Unelected judges can cut the voters out of the loop and decree liberal dogma the law of the land. Liberals don't want that stopped.
    The damage done by judicial activism extends beyond the particular policies that happen to catch the fancy of judges. Judicial ad-libbing creates a large area of uncertainty, making the law a trap for honest people and a bonanza for the unscrupulous.
    A disinformation campaign has already been launched to depict judges who believe in following the written law as "activist" conservatives, just like liberal activists.
    Those who play this game of verbal equivalence can seldom, if ever, come up with concrete examples where conservative judges made rulings directly counter to what the written law says or for which there is no written law.
    Meanwhile, nothing is easier to come up with than such examples among liberal judicial activists who have made decisions based on "evolving standards," "world opinion" or other such lofty hokum worthy of the Wizard of Oz. "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain," the Wizard said — and "Don't attack our judges" the liberals say.
    Even some conservative Republicans have fallen for this line. President Bush's former Solicitor General Theodore Olson recently condemned "personal attacks" on judges by their critics, and somehow lumped those critics with criminals or crackpots who have done violence to judges or their families.
    Criticizing someone's official conduct is not a "personal attack." Nor does criticism equate with violence. An independent judiciary does not mean judges independent of the law. Nor is the rule of judges the same as the rule of law. Too often it is the rule of lawlessness from the bench.
    Did anyone try this guilt-by-association ploy to blame critics of the Reagan administration when President Reagan was shot during an assassination attempt? They did not.
    The other big political and media spin is to say we should not reduce judges' power just because they make "decisions we don't like." The real objection is to decisions with no basis in the written law or even contrary to written law.
    Ploys and spin will of course only escalate if activist judges start getting replaced by judges who follow the law. That is the political price to be paid. If people will do the right thing only when there is no cost, that is the very definition of cowardice.

    Thomas Sowell is a nationally syndicated columnist.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050428C   . . . amid fog
 

By Donald Lambro

The fierce political battle over President Bush's judicial nominations may soon reach a climax, as talk of a compromise swept through the Capitol this week.
    But with each side escalating its rhetoric to a fever pitch and their loyal allies mounting a multimillion-dollar ad campaign, the possibility of a bipartisan deal seemed problematic at best.
    The whole business has been clouded by a confusing fog of issues, from religious beliefs to constitutional checks and balances, that seem to have strayed from the central rulemaking issue before the Senate: Should a minority of senators be allowed to prevent a simple up-or-down vote on judicial nominees?
    The Democrats believe they have the right to use — I would say abuse — the filibuster rule for unlimited debate in confirmation proceedings for the sole purpose of preventing a vote, unless a supermajority of 60 senators agrees to end that debate and proceed to a roll call vote.
    But the Constitution gives them no such right and for more than 200 years the Senate, with virtually no exceptions, has brought a president's judicial nominees up for a vote in the Judiciary Committee, and if reported to the full Senate, for an up-or-down vote by a simple majority.
    The Constitution merely says the president "shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate" to appoint judges. The Senate has the right to reject such judges, but does it have the legal right — once a nomination is before the Senate — to actively prevent a vote on the president's nominee in a self-governing democracy such as ours?
    Clearly, the minority does not have that right and the Democrats who claim they do are, well, being undemocratic.
    The Senate's filibuster rule of unlimited debate (the House has no such rule) was created to guarantee the rights of the minority for a full and fair discussion of every piece of legislation. The rule is there to prevent the tyranny of the majority from riding roughshod over the minority.
    A single senator can object to a bill and filibuster against it until the majority can get cloture to end "debate" and proceed to a vote. Such a rule has an appropriate place in legislative proceedings no matter how inconvenient it can sometimes be for the orderly flow of public business.
    The genius of our representative form of government is in part due to the legislative hoops and hurdles the Founding Fathers created to make it difficult for bad legislation to become law.
    Unlimited debate, by which a senator may hope to kill or at least stall a bill or amendment to extract some change in its provisions, was put into the Senate's rules for just this reason.
    But applying the filibuster rule to prevent the Senate from carrying out its constitutionally granted authority to approve or disapprove each judicial nominee clearly violates our nation's governing document.
    It is not entirely clear a majority of Americans fully understand the ramifications of all this. A Washington Post-ABC News Poll this week found 66 percent of 1,007 randomly selected adults oppose Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's proposal to require a majority vote for all judicial nominees.
    But note how the question was phrased: "Would you support or oppose changing Senate rules to make it easier for the Republicans to confirm Bush's judicial nominees?" Nothing in this question reflects the real issue before the Senate, which is bringing the president's nominees up for a vote.
    The partisan phrase "easier for the Republicans," leaves a lot to the imagination if one doesn't know what the rule change actually would do.
    But what if you asked the question this way: "Would you support or oppose changing Senate filibuster rules to ensure President Bush's judicial nominees be given an up-or-down vote?" I think the response would be very different.
    This is a parliamentary debate over the abuse of the rules, one the Republicans threaten to end by inserting a little language that just tells the Democrats they no longer will be able to deny the Senate majority's right to vote on federal judgeships.
    At stake are 10 of President Bush's nominees, most of them trapped in filibuster limbo for years merely because they are too conservative for the Democrats' more liberal tastes.
    But something deeper is at stake here, too, and that is our democratic system of government and whether we will allow abuse of the legislative rules to impede a president's election mandate and the full and fair disposition of constitutionally granted presidential powers to appoint judges.
    Mr. Bush and the Senate's Republican majority are not demanding anything extraordinary here. They simply want the right to vote on these nominations, up or down, and the Democrats don't because they lack the votes to defeat them.

    Donald Lambro, chief political correspondent of The Washington Times, is a nationally syndicated columnist.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050428C   Gavel powers
 

By John J. Duncan Jr.

In an almost hysterical reaction to comments by Majority Leader Tom DeLay about federal judges, several Democratic members of the House made holier-than-thou speeches last week defending judicial independence.
    In perhaps the most ridiculous comment, one member on the House Floor said Mr. DeLay's words had judges all over the nation "cowering in the corners." The majority leader may wish he had that much power, but it is obvious to anyone not seeking partisan political points that he does not.
    Mr. DeLay's comments came at the height of the Terri Schiavo case when emotions and feelings ran very high on both sides. Regardless of how one feels about the Schiavo case, and regardless if one is liberal or conservative, everyone should be concerned that the judiciary seems to be setting up as a type of superlegislature. Our Founding Fathers clearly did not mean for the judicial branch to be superior to or more powerful than the legislative and executive branches.
    Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, a former State supreme court justice, made some very serious charges on the floor of the Senate April 4. He said, "It causes a lot of people great distress to see judges use the authority they have been given to make raw political or ideological decisions." He added, "Sometimes the Supreme Court has taken on this role as a policymaker rather than an enforcer of political decisions made by elected representatives of the people."
    The reason people on both sides of the political spectrum should be concerned about this judicial power grab is that the political pendulum swings. Sometimes conservatives control legislative bodies; sometimes liberals do. Would liberals someday want conservative judges overruling their legislation?
    The Schiavo bill was very narrowly drawn to apply to just that case at the request or insistence of more liberal members of both House and Senate. Then some liberals in the media, in Congress and in the courts criticized the bill as being too narrowly drawn. One judge, showing great arrogance in a bitter nonjudicial type opinion, even scolded Congress for acting.
    I served 71/2 years as a circuit court or state trial court judge in Tennessee. I have great respect for the legal profession and the judiciary. When I attended George Washington University law school in the early 1970s, I took a course in legislative law. We were taught then that courts were not legislatures. They were not to be political bodies, and they were to give great deference to the actions of the Congress and state legislatures.
    In fact, we were taught, through much case law, that the courts' primary role was to try to determine legislative intent, not to try, whenever possible, to overrule it anytime judges might disagree for personal and/or political reasons.
    The intent of the Congress was clear in the Schiavo case, with the bill passing the House 203-58 with strong support from both parties and by unanimous agreement in the Senate. Are we now to have some type of judicial dictatorship?
    Thomas Jefferson, in a September of 1820 letter, said in response to arguments that federal judges should be the final interpreters of the Constitution: "You seem to consider the federal judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions, a very dangerous doctrine, indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have with others the same passions for the party, for power and the privilege of the corps. Their power is the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal."
    Alexander Hamilton, writing many years ago in Federalist Paper No. 81, said: "To avoid all inconveniences, it will be safest to declare generally that the Supreme Court shall possess appellate jurisdictions that shall be subject to such exceptions and regulations as the national legislature may prescribe. This will enable the government to modify this in such a manner as will best answer the ends of public justice and security."
    All judges are elected or appointed through a political process, yet many do not like to admit this either to themselves or to others. So they sometimes bend over backward to prove how nonpolitical they are. They leap at the chance to rule against a political defendant or show their power by overturning a political decision by Congress or some other legislative body.
    Federal judges in particular are not only unelected; they are, as a practical matter, almost totally unaccountable. Thus they have very great power, which is very easily abused. For most of this country's history, federal judges wielded this power with great restraint, giving great deference to legislative bodies. For many years now, however, we have had far too many judges who have lost their humility and have not shown such restraint. In trying to show how nonpolitical and above politics they are, they have ironically become more political than ever before.
    This has become so common that a majority in this country have become upset with government by the judiciary instead of by coequal legislative and executive bodies. We are going down a dangerous path and one clearly not intended by our Founding Fathers or the Constitution they gave us.
    We are supposed to have a government of, by, and for the people, not one that ignores clear legislative intent and becomes one that is only of, by and for the courts and of, by and for very political and power-hungry judges.

    John J. Duncan Jr. is a Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Tennessee.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050427C   A time for choosing II
 

By Cal Thomas

More than 40 years ago, Ronald Reagan delivered a televised address called "A Time for Choosing" about the ideological choices Americans faced in the 1964 presidential election between Lyndon Johnson and Barry Goldwater. The speech was to form the basis for Mr. Reagan's own presidential candidacies in 1976 and 1980.
    Republicans and the nation now face another time for choosing in the matter of confirming federal judges. For at least the last four decades, liberal Democrats have imposed their ideas and values on the nation without debate or public consent. On the most contentious of issues, such as religious expression in public places, abortion and what constitutes a family, a judicial elite has made rulings often out of sync with the Constitution and the will of much, if not most, citizens.
    Senate Republicans now have a once-in-a-lifetime chance to do something about judicial freelancing by confirming judges to the federal bench who will adhere to the Constitution and the laws of the United States, as they swear to in their oath. This is not what many modern judges have been doing. Too many have decided legal issues based on their personal preferences. If Republicans squander this unique chance to repair our broken legal system, they no longer deserve to run the government.
    Some Republican senators have expressed concern about possible irreparable harm to "comity" if they vote to change Senate rules they created and that are not in the Constitution. The new rules would apply only to judicial nominees, and the filibuster would remain available for nominees to other offices and for all other issues. Other senators worry if Republicans "do this" to Democrats, they will be unable to block judges nominated by a future Democrat president.
    These arguments are irrelevant to the greater task at hand, which is restoring the constitutional boundaries of the courts instead of permitting their continued violation of the separation of powers legislating from the bench.
    If this constitutional reconstruction project works, Republicans needn't to worry about what happens 20 or even 40 years later. They will have performed so a new generation grows up knowing how the Constitution should work, just as many now have known nothing but judicial tyranny, which serves neither the law nor the public.
    Vice President Dick Cheney stepped into the judicial wars last Friday when he spoke to the Republican National Lawyers Association. He pledged to cast the tie-breaking vote if the Senate deadlocks 50-50 on changing Senate rules. Apparently addressing vacillating Republican senators, Mr. Cheney said, "On the merits, this should not be a difficult call to make."
    Speaking of Democrat filibusters to keep qualified judges off the bench because of their conservative approach to the Constitution, Cheney added, "The tactics of the last few years, I believe, are inexcusable."
    Some Democrats, like West Virginia Sen.