Our country is presently mired in a judicial crisis, because of so many federal court judges' benches being vacant. When President Bush took office, he nominated dozens of well-qualified people for the positions that were vacant, but many have never made it to the Senate floor to be voted upon. Currently, there are 48 people waiting to be voted upon. Two highly qualified nominees are being filibustered on the Senate floor, a tactic unprecedented in American history.
Why all the stalling and delay tactics? Some of the judges being disallowed by a handful of senators are "strict constructionists." This means they believe in interpreting the Constitution very carefully and narrowly, not making new laws from the bench. Opponents of strict constructionists want to reshape America in accordance with their own ideas, so they prefer "judicial activism." This is another way of saying "legislating from the bench," and is now standard for many federal judges, according to Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas. "They dismiss the doctrine of strict construction as hopelessly outdated, instead treating the Constitution as fluid and changeable to create a desired outcome in any given case. With the federal judiciary focused more on promoting a social agenda than upholding the rule of law, Americans find themselves increasingly governed by men they did not elect and cannot remove from office."