** TYRANNY OF THE MINORITY ** The Continuing Drama of the U.S. Senate

http://www.davidosborne.net ^ | Today | David C. Osborne

[davidosborne]

Today on the floor of the United States Senate a debate that strikes at the very heart of our Constitution took place.

The Ongoing debate of the Miguel Estrada nomination will undoubtedly be discussed for years to come......

1. How can a BI-Partisan MAJORITY of Senators be obstructed by a Partisan MINORITY of LIBERAL Senators ?

2. How can a MINORITY of LIBERAL Senators trash the constitution by creating a requirement for the SUPER-MAJORITY (60 VOTES) for judicial nominees ?

3. Does the Constitution give the POWER to APPOINT judges to the LIBERAL MINORITY or to the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES?

4. Should we call for a Constitutional Ammendment Clarifying the role of the U.S. Senate in the Judicial Nomination Process? Should we require the Senate to vote up or down when a nomination comes to the floor? Should we require a simple majority (51 Votes) or a SUPER-Majority (60 Votes)?

[davidosborne]

Passing it on for discussion of the posted questions..?

[Diddle E. Squat]

5) How can a vanity be Breaking News?

[davidosborne]

I dont think this is a vanity.. I think these questions are timely considering the debate taking place in the Senate..

[Destro]

It is how the constitution was intended to work. We do not have a parliment.

The more govt does not work and the more debates in congress slow the process the safer and freer I feel.

[Jen]

Thanks.

[Paleo Conservative]

Perhaps you would have preferred Hillary care for the last 8 or 9 years? It was the filibuster that prevented the Clintons' healthcare schemes from being enacted. Also consider what delaying confirmation of judges really means. It means that fewer cases get heard in federal courts. It means fewer opportuninties for judges to convert their personal philosophies into law. The RATS are desparate, because they know they are on the verge of losing control of the judiciary for a generation or more.

[Paleo Conservative]

It is how the constitution was intended to work. We do not have a parliment.

Amen!

[Diddle E. Squat]

And you might want to peruse this thread before posting your self-promo of your website to Breaking, Front Page, and Extended News at the same time.

Topic Abuse, Particularly Activism

Perhaps the mods will be kind enough to leave it in the proper topic, rather than spammed up and down the sidebar.

[Paleo Conservative]

** TYRANNY OF THE MINORITY ** The Continuing Drama of the U.S. Senate

That's what the senate is all about! The Senate is not apportioned by population the way the House is. Each state has 2 senators. Theoretically the senators from the smallest 26 states could compose a majority of the Senate.

[Destro]

A REAL CONSERVATIVE LEFT ON FREE REPUBLIC BESIDES ME?

Shocked! Shocked!

I guess posts by "conservatives" like this is what we get when we open the party tent's flap.

What I find disgusting in this current trend among "conservatives" is that conservative is defined by pishing some sort of party line or agenda.

The power of government is bad even even when Republicans are in power. What makes the Republican party tolerable is that we live by that creed--or at least we did.

Thank God our Founding Fathers were blessed with the foresight to allow a minority the ability to thwart the majority.

Were are a republic!

[Quix]

YES! MAKE SURE THE RULES ARE CHANGED.

Used to be in support of the fillibuster--but no longer for judge appointments.

Naysayers have too much clout in the current system.

Give the power at least to the proactive majority.

[Destro]

There is no greater danger than supporting the constitutional process only when your in power.

[Squantos]

David , please take me off your ping list.

Thanks...Stay Safe !

[Founding Father]

Amen to posts 11 and 13!

[Quix]

Not sure I get your point.

I've grown weary and much more negative toward 'agin it' mentalities and actions.

If a political force doesn't win sufficient clout at the ballot--ASSUMEING BALLOTS ARE FAIR--NOT NECESSARILY TRUE--then I would, on average, typically, as SOP, be against trying to manipulate the system to jury rig control by petty obstructionism.

Petty obstructionism just rings increasingly childish, immature, shallow, teenagerish, . . . evil.

Either support something in congress or vote it down. Playing petty rules games just leaves an increasingly bad taste in my mouth.

I think such typically comes from small minds who want small minded tyranny to reign in the world.

[John Valentine]

I am one that thinks that there is a role and a purpose for the filibuster during debates on LEGISLATION that is wholly absent from a debate over a judicial or any other nominee proposed for an "advise and consent" motion.

I think that a Constitutional Amendment may be needed, although if so, it will only be because of the political intransigence and opportunism of the socialists.

Men and women of good will would quickly agree to handle this through a Senate rule change.

[davidosborne]

Thanks for all your comments... I have thought this through very carefully, and I would like to see this resolved by Senate Rules, without having to resort to a Constitutional Ammendment.. or should I say a Constitutional "clarification".. I am not sure if the founding fathers ever intended to give 41 Senators the power to BLOCK a judicial nomination.. I believe the Constitution is very clear when it says ADVISE AND CONSENT.. that is VOTE UP OR DOWN.. and if 51+ Senators vote YES the President in essence has been given "consent"... if 51+ Senators vote NO the president is NOT given "consent" and therefore may not APPOINT that nomminee....

If the Liberal MINORITY does not stop this obstructionist behavior they will undoubtedly lose more seats than already stand to lose.... I think it is very possible for the Republicans to hold 60+ seats in 109th Congress!! if for no other reason but to allow VOTES to take place.... I realize there are many out there who do not wish to see EITHER party with 60+ seats and will actually vote for a LIBERAL just to prevent "one party" from having too much power.. I think the Republican party is still too "Moderate" and the only way we can bring about the REAL CONSERVATIVE AGENDA is to elect 60+ Republicans in 2004 !!

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!!

[Destro]

The Founding Fathers designed mechanisims in the constitution for the very purpose of allowing a minority to be obstructionist.

Be angry only that the Republican leadership is not clever enough or strong enough to overcome the roadblock not that there is a roadblock.

The more govt does not work and the more debates in congress slow the process the safer and freer I feel.-That is the essence of a right wing conservative veiw point.