This is a letter to the editor which I decided not to send because it's too long:

Since Marbury v. Madison established the power of the courts to review acts of Congress and the Executive Branch, the appointment of federal judges has been politically sensitive, but there has never been a filibuster in the Senate to block a judicial nominee. This is not to excuse Republicans who held up Clinton's nominees, but we have to ask ourselves why this is happening. What could induce Democrats like Charles Schumer to risk offending so many latino voters to stop one of their own, Miguel Estrada, becoming an Appeals Court justice? Every parent knows that "They did it to us first!" is not a good excuse.

In my opinion, we are reaping the harvest of decisions like Roe v. Wade in which the courts intruded into a strongly divisive political issue, stretching the Constitution in order to do so. By doing so, they have made judicial nominations into political issues, all the more volatile because they are lifetime appointments. The Senate's advice and consent power was intended to guard against appointments of incompetents to these positions, but senate hearings are no longer about qualifications, judicial temperament, etc. The organizers of this filibuster are after a loyalty oath to abortion rights, nothing less. Mr. Estrada wisely has declined to state opinions on hypothetical cases or critique prior decisions of the Supreme Court, and that enrages feminist groups who donate lavishly to Democrats.


The root of all this brouhaha is the willingness of past courts to march in boldly where angels would fear to tread. Remember that the power to overturn actions of the other branches is not clearly stated in the Constitution. It was inferred by the Supreme Court and has been acquiesced in by the other branches. The courts have wisely recognized that they are not equipped to impose their will without that acquiescence, and have used restraint in using this power. But judicial activism creates circuses like those of the confirmation hearings for Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas and now nominees like Charles Pickering, Priscilla Owen and Miguel Estrada. Legal ability is no longer the issue. The nominee's support for or opposition to Roe v. Wade is the only criterion, and if he or she won't announce a position, FILIBUSTER!


Meanwhile, judicial vacancies go unfilled, dockets back up and the work of the courts is undone. In my opinion the Senate should guarantee every nominee an up or down vote without his nomination being bottled up in committee, and those votes should be within a specific time after the nomination is made. It is improper for any nominee to state prospectively how he or she would rule on any issue. If the courts are ever to be restored to their proper role as impartial triers of cases, they must not allow decisions which fix policy rather than apply law to stand.

I edited it down and added following. It's still too long, but I sent it anyway.

In case the Senate hasn't heard, our government has three branches, as one of our eminent judges used to start his answers in law school. The legislative and executive branches were designed to be political, chosen by the people. The Congress sets policy by passing laws. The Executive puts those policies into effect. Since both the president and the members of Congress are elected, they will always be embroiled in politics. But the Judicial Branch should not be political. It is supposed to interpret the law, not make its own, any more than necessary. pass laws. Judges rule on specific cases, based on their specific facts and the law as set forth in prior decisions, acts of Congress and the Constitution. They should not be the focus of political fights. When they allow this to happen, the separation of powers and checks and balances we all learned about it grade school are endangered.

Part of what parties win with the White House is the right to nominate. The Senate should not usurp that right. And that applies to both parties.