Eagle Forum
Alerts Nominations Architects vs. Activists Court Cases Courts & Culture Links
We the People Court College Curbing the Courts Court Comedy Law Library Resources

subscribe to eagle-mailSpecial Report Index


When President Bush nominated 11 individuals to the U.S. Court of Appeals on May 9, 2001, he explained "the standards by which I will choose all federal judges." He said: "Every judge I appoint will be a person who clearly understands the role of a judge is to interpret the law, not to legislate from the bench. To paraphrase James Madison, the courts exist to exercise not the will of men, but the judgment of law. My judicial nominees will know the difference."

That is precisely why liberal Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee--even before they regained control of the Senate -- attempted to demand a patently unconstitutional "automatic veto" over President Bush's judicial picks via a so-called "blue slip'' policy, wherein Senate Democrats would be able to veto a judicial nominee from his or her home state. That is also why now as the majority party controlling the agenda they are seeking to wield every procedural means possible to unfairly delay, obstruct and otherwise halt the consideration of the President's conservative judicial picks. Some observers are predicting that Democrats may try to block as many appointees as possible from being considered until after the mid-term elections. But it is more likely that they will soon begin waging a "war of attrition" ­ visiting the same type of unconscionable attacks on Bush judges as those that were heaped upon Attorney General John Ashcroft during his confirmation hearings. Their opposition strategy to block judicial nominees will include attempts to:

  • discredit as many appointees as they possibly can;

  • pressure the White House into withdrawing conservative nominations; and

  • intimidate some candidates into withdrawing to avoid being publicly smeared like John Ashcroft.

Liberal Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have been fierce and have plainly stated that beginning with Bush's initial federal court selections--and leading up to his potential Supreme Court nominees-- they intend to combat all picks that adhere to any form of constitutional judicial restraint. As it was declared by Judiciary Committee member Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) following the assault on Ashcroft: "It's a shot across the bow in terms of the Justice Department and how it conducts itself. It's a shot across the bow in terms of Supreme Court nominations. I'm proud of the job we did." Schumer is "proud" that he and his colleagues, particularly Senators Kennedy and Leahy, subjected Ashcroft to nearly 12 hours of outright attacks on his personal and religious convictions, mingled with baseless charges of racism and frequent pious lecturings on his failure to pay sufficient homage to "a woman's right to choose." The Democrats then followed up by further assailing him with over 400 written questions. Indeed, the battle over John Ashcroft's nomination did serve to dramatically demonstrate the left's ongoing relentless efforts to wrest the definition of "controlling legal authority" from its constitutional moorings -- largely through the process of seating as many liberal activist judges as possible on the federal bench while pulling out all the stops to derail from key government positions any who disagree with that goal.

Schumer is now new chairman of the Administrative Oversight & the Courts subcommittee and recently conducted a hearing designed to justify Democrats' intent to utilize ideological litmus tests in their dissection of conservative judicial picks. Democrats appear to be paving the way to proceed with all forms of character assassination in an effort to "Bork" every conservative judge that comes before them. But they will not succeed in this unconstitutional and destructive course of action if every concerned American rises up now


In order to combat liberal Democratic control of the Judiciary Committee and counteract their attempts to apply ideological litmus tests and generally wage war on the President's restraintist judicial nominees, we need a massive uprising from the grassroots and must re-double our efforts as follows:

We must now generate an outpouring of calls and letters to the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee & its members, and to all Senators, (see sample letter).

We must also write President Bush encouraging him to stay the course, (see sample letter).

We must write, fax and e-mail Letters-to-the-Editor regarding this critical issue facing the nation, (see sample letter). See suggested publications listed in the accompanying lobbying guide.

We must now create a sustained campaign of public education/activation in the media. (See "How to Promote Court Reform in the Media" lobbying guide).

You will also find accompanying talking points with timely articles, useful quotes from key leaders and suggested prayer guidelines. Please both widely distribute and wisely utilize these important resources to help lobby and educate as many of your fellow Americans as possible about this, the Number One domestic issue facing our nation.

Former President Bill Clinton had eight years to stack the courts with leftist activist judges. Clinton federal judges have:

  • opposed partial birth abortion bans, city and county seals containing crosses, and ruled against prayers before school board meetings.

  • They have supported the right of minors to an abortion without parental consent, the right of prison inmates to possess sexually explicit materials, the right of state college professors to access pornography on state-owned computers, and the rights of homosexuals to be scout leaders in the Boy Scouts of America.

  • They have supported the rights of criminal defendants in appellate courts more than twice as often as other judges and the right of a solidly Democrat state Supreme Court to unilaterally, ex post facto, rewrite state election laws to swing the 2000 presidential election to the Democrat candidate.

At this point, a survey of the judicial landscape shows that more than 54% of the federal judges in full-time service today are Democrat appointees, and overwhelmingly, are activist judges. But liberal Senate Democrats and their members on the Senate Judiciary Committee have demonstrated they will not be satisfied until 100% of federal judges are activist. That is why they persist in accusing Republicans of blocking Clinton nominees even though 374 of his judges were confirmed as compared to Ronald Reagan's record total of 378 judicial confirmations. Leftist legal activists made great strides under Clinton toward achieving a stranglehold on the federal courts and thereby the legal/social/moral direction of the nation for decades to come. If President Bush is able to counterbalance Clinton judges with those that exercise judicial restraint and are respectful of the Constitution, it will be a great setback for their leftist/activist agenda.

Google Ads are provided by Google and are not selected or endorsed by Eagle Forum
Eagle Forum • PO Box 618 • Alton, IL 62002 phone: 618-462-5415 fax: 618-462-8909 [email protected]