Marvins Window: Judgeships important to justice in nation

The rain fell steadily as I looked out my window remembering those Western movies I saw for 25 cents every Saturday growing up in western Oregon.

It rained most of the time there.

It was always important to know who controlled the law in the West of the 1800s.

I watched Judge, now ex judge, Roy Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court as he explained why he continued to fight the federal court order.

The feds told him to get that Ten Commandments tablet out of the courthouse.

I watched a little of the marathon debate in the U.S.

Senate over the appointment of judges to the several U.S.

Circuit Courts of Appeals.

It is important to note that the judges being blocked by the current, unprecedented tactics of the Democrat minority in the U.S.

Senate are all for the same courts, all one level below the U.S.

Supreme Court.

The Democrats want to keep these qualified judges with conservative views off the appellate courts from which the next appointment to the U.

S.

Supreme Court could be found.

They also want to make it clear that any President Bush nominee to the Supreme Court will not be affirmed unless they can select the nominee.

Bush 41 made that kind of compromise when he was president.

However, he was facing a Democrat majority in the U.S.

Senate.

That nominee was Judge David Souter, who is one of the most liberal judges on the Supreme Court.

The numbers thrown out by the Democrats in the Senate should not fool us.

Most of that time they were the majority.

In addition, it is not numbers but the blocking of all appellate court nominees that is at issue.

The last four years of President Bill Clinton's term, Senator Tom Daschle was the Senate majority leader.

His party controlled the Senate Judiciary Committee that recommends judicial votes on the floor.

Not once did the Republican minority hold up a vote in the committee or on the floor.

It pays to know your history when listening to politicians trying to rewrite it.

At the beginning of President George W.

Bush's term, the Republicans held a slim majority in the U.S.

Senate by virtue of Vice President Cheney's tie breaking vote as presiding officer.

Then, Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords left the Republicans and voted with the Democrats.

That gave control of the Judiciary Committee back to the Democrats and the Majority Leader position back to Senator Daschle.

Jefford's Vermont colleague, Senator Patrick Leahy, become chairman of the Judiciary Committee and none of these U.

S.

Circuit Court nominees ever got out of committee for an up or down floor vote.

In 2002 the Republicans won control of the U.S.

Senate and the Judiciary Committee.

The nominees made it to the floor of the U.S.

Senate.

That is when the Democrat minority began this filibuster tactic of not allowing a vote on the nominees on the Senate floor.

These six nominees would be setting on the bench at various U.S.

Circuit Courts of Appeal if votes had been allowed.

This tactic is new and unprecedented in the 214-year history of the U.S.

Senate, If it continues, no judge will ever reach the Circuit Court of Appeals or the U.

S.

Supreme Court until one political party has 60 senate seats.

I am not sure that kind of majority has ever existed in the Senate.

Senate rules must change or attitudes must change.

Control of the law with a liberal bias is the Democrat's goal.

They want more courts like the one in San Francisco that ruled 'Under God" out of the pledge.

All those old Westerns had cattle barons, timber giants, railroad builders or mining companies that wanted to build empires using the law to further their own goals.

The first thing they did was elect their own sheriff.

I have seen nearly a 100 drunk judges (I made up that figure) portrayed in those movies.

Then John Wayne, Gene Autry, Jimmy Stewart or Randolph Scott would ride in on a white horse and make things right.

I wonder what ever happened to Randolph Scott?

When the Democrats try to convince Americans that an Afro-American woman who came up from poverty to become a member of the California State Supreme Court is "out of the mainstream of American thought," something is greatly amiss.

Judge Brown received 78 percent of the vote in her last reelection in California, one of the more liberal voting states in the U.S.

Democrats are manipulating the Senate and rewriting history to control the law.

They do not have the votes to make the law, so they want judges that will make the law for them.

It is a dangerous situation and we should all want it to change.