Posted on 05/16/2005 11:48:25 AM PDT by ceoinva
The battle over the filibustering of judges is not merely a “political” battle. It is actually a battle over the US Constitution and this is not a battle Americans can afford to lose.
You have heard the arguments against filibusters on judge nominations: “This overturns 200 years of Senate tradition;” “We demand fairness;” and “The President’s nominees deserve an up-or-down vote.” The fact is, “tradition,” “fairness,” and “deserving” are not sufficient arguments against those fighting viciously to undermine our Constitution. It’s the Constitution, Senator!
(Excerpt) Read more at usanext.org ...
FINALLY .. I have been yelling this all over the place .. trying to get people to realize this is a BIG deal and WE MUST WIN THIS ATTACK AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION.
Spread the word!!!
Judicial filibustering is not constitutional.
Did this have to be an excerpt ..??
Here's an idea -- why doesn't Feckless Frist get a copy of that part of the Constitution, blow it up REAL BIG and put it in front of the Senate for all to see, read it R-E-A-L-L-Y S-L-O-W (so even Sheets can see and hear) and then say, "What part of this don't you understand, you @#$%^&* morons????"
You are correct - and I love the article!!
I would love it if he would do that .. LOL! What a fun thing that would be.
This is bull. Just because the Constitution requires a super majority in some matters doesn't mean that a super majority is forbidden in other matters.
"Not required" does not equal "prohibited".
Any attempt to create a standard not specified in the Constitution, without amending the Constitution, is nothing short of a violation of the Constitution.
More bull. The Constitution doesn't specify a standard, so *any* standard is going to be a "standard not specified".
Thanks -- I was wondering if someone would point out the illogical thesis of the article -- I didn't want to, because I'm new. All of this is arbitrary and throwing around whether or not this debate is "Constitutional" is irrelevant and disingenous. All Senate rules are not layed out in the Constiution -- so does that mean that ALL Senate rules are unconstitutional? Of course not.
And .. obviously you have not read the Constitution.
The paragraph specifically states what requires a super majority and what doesn't. It's not REQUIRED for judicial nominees - and it never has been for 214 years.
So watch out for that BULL - you may end up stepping in it.
See #11
So what?
"Not required" does not equal "prohibited".
Repeat:
"Not required" does not equal "prohibited".
Repeat:
"Not required" does not equal "prohibited".
Not sure exactly where you are coming from on this issue Sandy, but I'll offer the following comments:
1. Use of the filibuster to obstruct the confimation of judges -- while not "unconstitutional" -- is certainly an extraconstitutional abuse of power and abdication of responsibility. To use a parliamentary procedure to impose a 2/3 majority requirement on the confirmation process is flat-out wrong.
2. While I hope the GOP senators will go ahead and trigger a procedural ruling throwing out the use of filibusters against appointees, I wish they had simply changed the rules at the beginning of the session to clarify the advise and consent process and eliminate the "gentleman's filibuster" on nominees. If the dems want to shut down the senate and insist on debating the nominees ad infinit itim, then let them do so and let nothing else proceed out of the senate. Otherwise, make them put up or shut up.
3. While your comment that just because the Constitution requires a super majority in some matters does not mean it is forbidden in other matters has some merit, but this abuse of the filibuster to impose a supermajority on judicial nominees clearly violates the intent of the advise and consent clause, especially when you consider what the framers of the Constitution had to say about confirmation of presidential appointees. The current environment of Borking every appellate court nominee that comes along would be as offensive to Madison and Jefferson as the offenses of King George that Jefferson enumerated in the Declaration of Independence. The actions of Reid, Kennedy, Kerry, et al would have resulted in being tarred, feathered, and run out of town in disgrace.
4. There is a huge difference between legislation, which must be passed by both houses and differences worked out in conference committee, and the confirmation of presidential appointees, which is a responsibility reserved by the Constitution to the Senate alone. Where a filibuster might be justified in the case of bicameral legislation, it should never be used to prevent the confirmation vote for an appointee.
Strawman. He/She never said that the Democrats' abuse wasn't uncalled for or unprecedented. The poster simply stated that "not required" does not equal "prohibited."
It doesn't have "some" merit.
"Not prohibited" does not equal an endorsement for a minority to IMPOSE by obstruction an extra-constitutional requirement for confirmation. The Constitution specifies limited items that require a supermajority. Anything else can be passed with a simple majority.
You are correct that not required does not equal prohibited. So if it is the will of the congress and the people to impose a supermajority requirement on confirmation of presidential appointees, then the congress could propose and pass legislation (or more effectively a Constitutional amendment) to impose this new requirement and have it signed by the president (in the case of legislation) or ratified by 3/4 of the states' legislatures (in the case of an amendment). But without such OFFICIAL imposition of a supermajority reqirement for confirmation of appointees, the use of the filibuster is CLEARLY a case of a minority in the senate imposing an extra-constitutional supermajority requirement. There is absolutely NOTHING in the Constitution that would endorse the idea of the minority imposing new supermajority requirements upon the majority as the democrats in the Senate are doing.
Yes, it has "some" merit, but very little in the current conversation. While I made a subtle distinction between the ideas of "unconstitutional" vs "extra-contsitutional", I think it is way past time that the GOP called these idiots on this imposition by a minority in the senate of a supermajority requirement that is clearly outside the scope of the few specific items where a supermajority is required by the Constitution. And while "not required" is not equal to "prohibited", neither is "not prohibited" equal to "authorized upon approval of a minority".
You're talking semantics here and that won't work with me.
And .. you think if you repeat your assertions often enough I'll get it ..?? ROTFLOL!!!
True. But there is explicit endorsement of the idea that the Senate gets to make its own rules--"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings." Text trumps non-text, imo. Bottom line, as much as the filibusters suck, I just don't buy the (author's) argument that they're unconstitutional.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.