Enough: End Unconstitutional Judicial Filibusters

CHRONWATCH.COM ^ | APRIL 16, 2005 | JOE MARIANI

[llortami]

LOL. OK. But you could at least try to answer my question

[CHARLITE]

The Constitution doesn't say a thing about filibustering, so you're right in one sense - that it "can't be unconstitutional, if the Constitution doesn't mention it."

However, the advice & consent duties of the congress with respect to any president's prerogative in appointing judges only requires a simple majority which is 51 votes. Therefore, the sudden demand on the part of the Democrat opposition, that rules for breaking a filibuster be applied to dealing with judicial nominees IS unconstitutional.

[yoe]

Tom Daschle and Senate Democrats Block Bush Judicial Nominees........"WASHINGTON (9/29/04)

Senate Democrats have used the filibuster because the targeted nominees would have been confirmed by simple majorities on up-and-down votes."

What is best for America is the furthest thing from these Democratic minds - Call your elected NOW and demand they go by the United States Constitution and not some rule made up by Tom Daschle....look where that got him!

Go to your phones and call Bill Frist's office: (202) 224-3344 - nicely tell them to either act like the Majority party or to move over and let someone like Tom DeLay take over.................
that we're sick and tired watching our MAJORITY being pushed around by the DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS OF AMERICA! Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Boxer and the rest.

AMERICAN'S WANT THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONAL OPTION!

[angelanddevil2]

Waht's the Nuke Option?.

[vertium]

Sorry to disillusion you (probably actually difficult to disillusion someone with little vision), but Americans don't generally agree with you.

This is all about Bush's ability to name a right-wing jurist to the Supreme Court should there become a vacancy, which is very likely this year.

These are LIFETIME appointments, so they can't just be changed the next time that the power shifts in Congress. In general, that's a good thing... but it also requires that there be adequate debate on the person being considered.

The majority party always has the committee structure and leadership appointments to impose their will on the minority and the minority needs a mechanism for not being relegated to doormat status. Many Republicans who post here, including you, yoe, seem to be power hungry (as if you were actually in power!) such that those in power should trample those who are not. There is a place for such behavior and attitude - it's called North Korea or China or Iran... go live there and be hopeful that you are in a position of power.

Please remember that the margin of majority is very slim and if the entire country (for whom you have decided you're qualified to speak) were in agreement with you, we'd have 100 Republican Senators, which we do not. If that ever happens, I'll take my own advice and move somewhere where freedom and liberty and a two party system still means that both parties get a vote.

Bye for now.