Why We Have To Keep The Filibuster

This from the LA Times  is the prime example for why we must maintain the filibuster for judicial nominees. Here’s the kind of people the Bush Administration is nominating.

Just days after a bitterly divided Senate committee voted along party lines to approve her nomination as a federal appellate court judge, California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown told an audience Sunday that people of faith were embroiled in a "war" against secular humanists who threatened to divorce America from its religious roots, according to a newspaper account of the speech… read on

I like this remark because the Republican Noise Machine can’t pin this on the media:  "I don’t have a speech writer," she said. "I do these myself. And it speaks for itself."

Steves says:  So, let’s put this in context. Bush has nominated a person to serve on the second highest court in the nation that believes FDR was a socialist, that minimum-wage regulations should be outlawed, that the New Deal was a “socialist revolution,” and that Social Security should be equated with “cannibalism.” 

Then, to top things off during the fight over her nomination, she describes herself as a combatant in a religious war against non-believers. Brown is Phyllis Schlafly in a judicial robe. Her nomination sounds more like some kind of bizarre joke than a serious move to fill an appellate court vacancy.