Posted on 02/04/2010 6:31:41 AM PST by eRtwngr
My personal view would be to remove the filibuster for judicial appointment only. This follows more closely the strict interpretation nof the Constitution and defers to the president to appoint judges as he sees fit. The phrase "elections have consequences" seems to fit here. But the filibuster serves an important role in good government and law making and should not be removed for that.
(Excerpt) Read more at ertwngr.blogspot.com ...
Check my tagline.
How is this a strict interpretation?
The Constitution says the president shall appoint judges "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate." The president must obtain the consent of the Senate. That's a far cry from deference. If the Senate were to be deferential to the president, then why require their consent? It's nonsensical.
In Article 1 the Constitution states that "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings." Isn't the filibuster such a rule? There's nothing in the Constitution saying by what means or by what majority the Senate must perform this function. It's left entirely up to them.
A strict interpretation of the Constitution finds that the filibuster is within the Senate's power when deciding on executive appointments. Checks and balances.
If they did, Robert Bork would still be Chief Justice and Roe vs Wade would have been overturned 20 years ago. Conservatives don’t seem to block judges, even giving Ruth Bader Ginsburg a pass. But liberals block them all the time.
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.