Libs want activist judges to accomplish what they can't

It's clear to any non-myopic American that liberalism in this country has, by and large, been an abject failure. It fails time and again, so much so that liberal politicians repeatedly run for office while hiding their liberal stripes.

Liberals are, for the most part, unable to pass liberal legislation. Why? Because the American people reject most of the tenets of liberalism. When citizens enact legislation or voter initiatives that run counter to liberal orthodoxy, you can best believe that some leftist group (ACLU, People for the "American" Way, etc.) will run to court to stop the will of the "ignorant" masses from prevailing. Californians passed a citizen referendum / ballot initiative that banned state funds from paying for certain state services to illegal immigrants. The state was promptly sued by a liberal interest group, who wanted a liberal judge to overturn the will of the people. Such examples are limitless.

The battle against judicial filibusters is heating up, and libs know what's at stake. Thomas Sowell's column sums it up nicely:

This is not about two people being nominated to be federal judges. It is about the whole role of judges in a self-governing republic. The voters' votes mean less and less as time goes by, when judges take more and more decisions out of the hands of elected officials and substitute their own policy preferences, all under the guise of "interpreting" laws.

Judges who decide cases on the basis of the plain meaning of the words in the laws -- like Justices Brown and Owen -- may be what most of the public want but such judges are anathema to liberals.

The courts are the last hope for enacting the liberal agenda because liberals cannot get enough votes to control Congress or most state legislatures. Unelected judges can cut the voters out of the loop and decree liberal dogma as the law of the land.

Liberals don't want that stopped.

No, they do not want it stopped...not at all!

Sowell's column also contends there will be a political price to pay for changing the filibuster rules, but the price is worth it. I disagree that there will be a price to pay. The price of obstructing has been paid...by Daschle and other Democrats who were guilty by association (see elections 2002 and 2004). The average American doesn't know what an arcane Senate tactic like filibustering is, and they won't vote out a candidate who simply makes a Senate rules change. How would a liberal campaign commercial look like that?

Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) actually was forced (gasp!) to vote Yea or Nay on a judicial candidate! If you vote for Senator Nelson's Republican opponent, you can count on Senator Nelson being forced (gasp!) to fulfill his Constitutional duty and vote for or against even more judges! Stop the insanity! Paid for by Nelson '06. "I'm Bill Nelson, and I approved this message."