Pro-Family Leaders Call On Congress to Curb Judicial Activism, Filibusters
by Bill Fancher and Jenni Parker
April 20, 2005
(AgapePress) - A pro-family activist says Congress has the power to put an end to judicial activism if the legislators want to exercise it. Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum contends that America's founding fathers offered the nation the means to curtail a runaway judiciary.The principal remedy, Schlafly asserts, is for U.S. citizens to "urge Congress to use its Article III powers to regulate the courts." And although it will take time, she say the public and, in some cases, members of Congress, must be educated about the relationship between the courts and the Constitution of the United States.
Phyllis Schlafly | |
"The Constitution did not create any federal courts except the Supreme Court," the Eagle Forum spokeswoman points out. "All the other federal courts were created by Congress. Whatever Congress created it can un-create, abolish, and regulate."Schlafly believes the first step Congress should take is to limit the jurisdiction of the courts over religious issues. "We want to urge Congress to immediately pass the Constitutional Restoration Act, which has been introduced by Senator Shelby and Congressman Aderholt," she says. "This would take away from the federal courts the power to hear challenges to the acknowledgement of God as a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment."
Passing this legislation, Schlafly explains, would prevent the courts from ruling on cases involving the Ten Commandments, the Pledge of Allegiance, Nativity scenes, and crosses. She encourages pro-family voters to let their lawmakers know they want the activist courts reined in, and she says the Constitution Restoration Act is a good place to begin.
Meanwhile, another pro-family advocate is calling for clarity on an issue related to Congress and the American judiciary. Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council (FRC) says many people, including some conservative leaders, seem to be confused about opposition to the Democratic filibuster being used to block votes on President Bush's judicial nominees.
| | 
Tony Perkins |
While many supporters of the Democrats' obstructionism, and even a few conservatives as well, have objected to efforts to break the judicial filibuster because they say to do so could lead to the loss of the use of the filibuster in the legislative process, Perkins says that is simply not true. He contends that there is an important distinction to be made between the legislative filibuster and the judicial filibuster."No one has recommended eliminating the longstanding Senate tradition that enables 41 Senators to delay or block a vote on legislation. This is an important tool within Senate rules," the FRC spokesman points out. That tool, he adds, has long given the minority party a vehicle to seek consensus and offer amendments to shape legislation to a better outcome. But the time-honored legislative filibuster should not be confused, he says, with the tactic the Democrats have been using to prevent Bush's pro-life or religious judicial nominees from receiving an up-or-down vote.
The filibuster process, Perkins contends, is irrelevant when it comes to judicial nominees, who must be either accepted or rejected. In this case, he says, "The judicial filibuster is also unconstitutional, as it prohibits the Senate from fulfilling its constitutional duty to advise and consent."
A filibuster of legislation is both constitutional and permissible under Senate rules, but Perkins insists that the current judicial filibuster by the Democrats conflicts with both the Constitution and Senate tradition. If Senate liberals will not abandon "this new and destructive tactic," the pro-family leader warns, the only way to restore order within the Senate will be to confront the judicial filibuster directly with a clarification of Senate rules.
