GOP Senator Threatens Lawsuit Over Judicial Filibusters

CNSNEWS.com ^ | 11/17/03 | Randy Hall

[DonQ]

Graham is about to have the Supreme Court explain "separation of powers" to him.

[Huck]

Another loser strategy. There is nothing in the Constitution to prevent a filibuster of a judicial nominee.

[Prime Choice]

"The Senate should not confirm judges - male or female - whose records indicate they will roll back core legal protections that are necessary to ensure women's and girls' continued progress," said Judith C. Appelbaum, vice president and legal director of the National Women's Law Center.

Translation: "We don't like people actually holding others responsible for their conduct. We do like the idea that women can kill their unborn babies out of convenience. Morality doesn't even enter the picture. And we want your vote in 2004."

That's how it'd come out if those criminals told the TRUTH for a change...

[jocon307]

"Another loser strategy"

Agreed. The simplest way to end this silliness (since the pubbies have now PROVEN that they don't have the backbone to make the dims mount a REAL filibuster) is to elect more Republican senators.

[Huck]

Agreed. The simplest way to end this silliness (since the pubbies have now PROVEN that they don't have the backbone to make the dims mount a REAL filibuster) is to elect more Republican senators.

And a real filibuster might actually be bad politics anyway. Anyway, it isn't going to happen. I want to know why out of 168, they can only find half a dozen that are objectionable to Chuck Shumer and company. I'd like to see them improve on that ratio.

Fact is, I don't know Owen, Pryor, Estrada, or Pickering. I don't know what sort of judges they would be. For all this coverage and "debate", I haven't got a clue if they would be Scalia-like, or Thomas-like, or Rehnquist-like, or Kennedy-like. So I have a hard time getting too worked up about it. The GOP is getting muscled by a united minority, plus the RINO middle that keeps them from going nuclear (bad analogy,in this terror age, by the way.)

But they make asses of themselves saying this is unconstitutional. Where in the constitution does it specify how the senate should give consent? It doesn't. Open and shut case. Graham's throwing a temper tantrum, or grandstanding, or both.

[The Duke]

I had an idea last night that I thought this might be a good opportunity to discuss.

If Bush doesn't make "recess appointments" in a few weeks just as Bill Clinton did, then we should start a campaign for everyone to forward their "penis enlargement" spam to the Whitehouse email address.

It might make for some interesting newscasts.

Any thoughts?

[putupon]

[jimtorr]

....make the dims mount a REAL filibuster....

Under current Senate rules, the Dems are mounting a real filibuster.

It's a gentlemans rule, they only have to notify the senate that they intend to filibuster. It takes 60 votes to force "cloture", or an end to debate. That's what a filibuster is, non-stop "debate".

[johnb838]

But they make asses of themselves saying this is unconstitutional.

My understanding is that the court has held in the past that the "consent" part means a simple majority. If that's what the SCUSA holds to be the constitutional standard, then a filibuster (a parliamentary invention) may be disenfranchising the citizens if the majority states through their senators.

[Huck]

My understanding is that the court has held in the past that the "consent" part means a simple majority. If that's what the SCUSA holds to be the constitutional standard, then a filibuster (a parliamentary invention) may be disenfranchising the citizens if the majority states through their senators.

I haven't seen any documentation of that. I haven't even heard that said. I have heard senators contend that filibuster of judges is unconstitutional. In fact, it has been done before, and there is nothing in the constitution to prevent it. It doesn't even say the Senate MUST vote on a nominee. It doesn't say the Senate MUST vote up or down. It simply says that any judicial appointee requires the consent of the Senate.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

"separation of powers"

Sigh . . .

It's a question of hardball. If you're not willing to throw the occasional inside fastball, you can't play in the big leagues.

The real reason Democrats can pull this sort of stunt--the reason the Democratic Party is effective at all--is that it aligns itself with the convenience of the horror show known as journalism. Thus the Democrats always have the PR wind at their backs.

It's no different that what happened during the Sore Loserman fiasco 3 years ago; no way a Republican pulls that sort of pettifogging and gets respectful press while doing it. And it has to be said that the courts do read the newspapers; Mr. Justice Thomas famously does not, but the exception proves the rule. If judges didn't read newspapers but ruled only on the merits, no judge who is remotely conservative would ever rule in favor of the FCC.

Because journalism is politics, and the FCC (i.e., an undemocratic arm of the government similar to the courts) gives licenses to an elite to conduct journalism (and other politics, not excluding our beloved el Rushbo) and not to we-the-people generally. And as all conservatives have reason to know, journalism is not less political when it claims to have no POV. Rather, the claim not to be political (while talking about politics!) is itself is extremely political; "The News" is even more tendentiously political than Rush Limbaugh is.

Licensing people to print political messages is anathema to the First Amendment; licensing people to convey political messages over "the public airwaves" no different--and has lead to the situation where The New York Times and its ilk serve as the standard for objectivity in broadcasting. Imagine! The First Amendment says that the private organization known as The New York Times can do just about anything with its press but drop it on your head, and the government can't regulate it at all. But if The New York Times says it is objective the government (the FCC) takes for granted that its licensees are operating in the public interest so long as they do not engage in constant flame wars with The New York Times!

[Catspaw]

Graham is asking the Supreme Court to rule on an internal Senate dispute over rules they made themselves.

He'll get his head handed to him in a basket.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

It doesn't even say the Senate MUST vote on a nominee. It doesn't say the Senate MUST vote up or down. It simply says that any judicial appointee requires the consent of the Senate.

One way of looking at it is that the president should make a recess appointment right now--because the Senate is, by refusing to vote, behaving exactly as if it were in recess!

[IndyMac]

>> Where in the constitution does it specify how the senate should give consent? It doesn't. <<

The constitution specifically calls out where a supermajority is required, and judicial confirmation is not on that list. It defines the legislature's role in judicial confirmation as only 'advise and consent', and this role has _never_ before been defined as requiring a supermajority for affirmation. Thus, the Democrat actions are, effectively, a new interpretation of our constitution (ironic since their real problem here is with strict constructionsists in the judiciary).

As you said ... case closed.

[BushCountry]

bump, so I can read the replies after work. };O)

[TomGuy]

This Dems thought up this tactic to prevent approval of possible SC nominees getting through confirmation without their specific blessing and choice.

The Pubs should have called for a ruling from the chair when the very first judicial nominee filibuster happened. The chair should have ruled the Dem out of order and called for the floor vote--not on cloture, but on the nominee. Yes, the Dems would have jumped up and down screaming and yelling---but, to quote Judge Judy: So?!?!?!?!

The Pubs didn't head his tactic off at the pass, so to speak. Now, they have to live with their own ineffectiveness because they don't have the courage to take this to the mat.

Dems won. Pubs lost. And the Dems did it with a minority of 41. The Pubs just need to play French, raise the white flag of surrender on Judicial nominations. They lost big time. GWB better hope that the SC justices stay strong (alive) and don't retire, at least until after 2004. Otherwise, Daschle/HClinton will be the determiners of who gets appointed to any SC position.

[ClintonBeGone]

Graham is about to have the Supreme Court explain "separation of powers" to him.

You're exactly right. And when they bounce him out of court, it's going to give the other side even more momentum. What a fool. I've never liked this guy since he endorsed McCain over Bush in the 2000 primary. Self serving weasle.

[ClintonBeGone]

Graham is asking the Supreme Court to rule on an internal Senate dispute over rules they made themselves.

He who goes the the SC first, loses. Their better bet is to simply confirm with 51 votes and let the other side challenge the validity of the appointment.

[ClintonBeGone]

Under current Senate rules, the Dems are mounting a real filibuster.

Not really. A true filibuster is done when you have fewer than 40 vote for your side and the only way to prevent a vote is to keep talking to there is no closing of the debate. That's certainly not the case here.