Congress and the Courts
Restoring the Constitutional Balance

Recently, the Senate held its longest debate in nearly a decade. The subject wasn't health care, war, or even education. It was something even more vital to the health of our democracy: the constitutional balance of power between the executive and the legislative branches.

The issue was the refusal of Senate Democrats to allow a vote on four of the president's nominees to the Federal Courts of Appeals: Charles Pickering, Priscilla Owens, Bill Pryor, and Janice Rogers Brown.

Republican Senators tried to make the point—and did—that judicial nominations shouldn't be pigeonholed in committee or blocked by a handful of senators using archaic Senate rules. As Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist put it, "All we ask is for a vote, an up-or-down vote." Frist's position is fair, reasonable, and right.

It sounds even more reasonable when you consider the minority's reasons for blocking the vote. There's no question about qualifications: All of the nominees are highly qualified.

The opposition is about ideology and politics, period. Judge Pickering's principal offense is that he suggested to a defendant that when he got to prison, he get involved in Prison Fellowship programs.

The treatment of Bill Pryor is especially egregious. He had the temerity to tell a Senate committee that he was pro-life without exceptions, which is the only position that a faithful Catholic can in good conscience take. In preventing a vote on his nomination, his opponents have created a "viewpoint test" that, in effect, says "No Faithful Catholics Need Apply." This is precisely the kind of religious test for office that the Constitution specifically prohibits.

Now to most people, talk about judicial nominees sounds a bit arcane and boring. Others are interested in federal judges, but never pay attention to what happens in their home state. In some jurisdictions, the people vote for judges, but few know about the candidates. It just doesn't seem to matter that much.

Well, two days ago the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts declared that restricting marriage to a man and a woman is unconstitutional and abridges the civil rights of homosexuals. Same-sex "marriage" is now the law in Massachusetts. And it's a reminder of just how important the selection of judges at every level really is.

The courts—not the people of Massachusetts—have unleashed one of the biggest social experiments in history. And since homosexual conduct is contrary to biblical teaching and to the way humans were designed, the results will be predictably disastrous for individuals, marriages, children, communities, and the culture.

So what can be done? In Washington, President Bush should make each of the blocked nominees a recess appointment as soon as Congress leaves town. It's been done before, most recently by President Clinton.

In the place where you live, an election year is only six weeks away. The president, governors, and the senators—state and federal—you elect, or fail to elect, will determine the judges you get. And Congress will vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment that affirms that marriage is only between a man and a woman.

This is no time for Christians to retreat into their shells. This is a time for all of us to pray and to act with love and dedication.