Home > Perspective

It's not “The Constitutional Option!”

by Conservativity Staff,
Originally Posted: 5/24/2005 2:12:17 PM

Most conservative pundits have shied away from the term "Nuclear Option" to refer to the elimination of judicial nominee filibusters.  Instead, they, and even our beloved Senate increasing majority leader Dr. Bill Frist, have taken to calling this plan "the Constitutional Option."  While I understand their meaning, I disagree with their terminology.

"[T]here is simply no ’option’ when it comes to a Senator obeying and preserving the Constitution!"

With all of the massive respect due to our beloved Dr. Frist, Hannity and Rush, there is simply no "option" when it comes to a Senator obeying and preserving the Constitution!  Using the two words in a single phrase is unwise and inaccurate.  Dr. Frist knows, as do the people, that Constitutional fealty is an oath-bound requirement.

Personally, I think that the term "Nuclear Option" is an apt description.  I know well that the extreme left uses this term to attempt its usual tactic of conjuring terror in the minds of the people.  "Eeeeek!  Evil conservatives will put extremist judges on the bench and your rights will evaporate just like a city under nuclear attack!"  What a crock.  The situation is quite different.  Right now, extremists sit on the bench, and your rights are slowly being eaten, much like coral by a starfish.  You cannot donate to politics as you will; the courts have seen to it.  The people cannot decide what the government run schools may teach about the origin of man; the courts have seen to it.  The Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, enshrined in the second amendment, does not exist in the ninth circuit; the appellate court there has seen to that. 

States are forced by the courts to maintain driving privileges and driver’s licenses for illegal aliens, including 250,000 illegal aliens in New York, site of the worst 9/11 attack!  California voters cannot enact a law prohibiting illegal aliens from using all of the free government services they can.  The Chief Justice of Alabama cannot control the displays in his own courthouse; a federal judge has seen to that.

With that kind of track record, and I have only cited a few of the extreme leftist decisions here, is it any wonder that we Conservatives, who make up the clear majority of America, want the abuse of the filibuster "nuked?"

Extreme leftists rule over the people from the Federal Bench in much of the United States.  What is truly laudable about our President is his appointment of balanced and fair (apologies to Fox News; I have no intention to appropriate your slogan; that is why I switched it around) judges to the courts, rather than right-wing extremists, to balance things out.  This of course makes sense, the GOP has moral foundation, and to our beloved President, an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution is a serious thing.  We can also say that for Dr. Frist and all but seven GOP Senators.

The extreme left continues to press the forced acceptance of its ideology.  The term "Nuclear" is part of their fearmongering.  However, we should be (the turncoat seven have delayed this) nuking their ability to impose a new requirement on judicial nominees -- they seek to amend the Constitution without following the Amendment process.  We don’t have a Constitutional "option."  Lest the bad guys relent, our only recourse is to nuke their unlawful tactic.