Posted on 05/20/2004 10:13:51 PM PDT by dts32041
If it were not for his fondness for tax cuts, and his pursuit, however flawed, of the ongoing war on terror, I can't for the life of me think of a good reason to vote for George Bush this November. OK .. The Poodle's name on the ballot would be a fairly good reason .. though I'm not sure reason enough.
You've probably heard by now, but George Bush has once again managed the nearly impossible physical feat of handing his head to the Democrats ... again. He gave up; ran for the hills; threw in the towel; bailed. Tragically, didn't really get anything of real value for his craven surrender. He gave the Democrats almost a complete victory.
The issue this time is the nomination and confirmation process for federal judges. Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution grants to the president the authority to appoint federal judges “with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.” Every legal scholar not employed by Harvard of the Senate Judiciary Committee will tell you that a majority vote in the Senate would constitute consent. The president makes his choice; the nomination goes to the Senate, and the Senate votes. If a majority votes for confirmation, we have a new federal judge.
That was then, this is now. When the Democrats lost control of the Senate in the 2002 elections they decided that a simple majority vote would no longer be good enough to confirm a judicial appointee. Over the years leftists have depended on judicial activism and fiat to enact much of their agenda. The future of their anti-individualist, big-government designs depend largely on the left's ability to keep Constitutionally oriented judges off the federal bench. Since they didn't have a Senate majority, they needed a new rule. To keep constitutionalists off the bench Daschle and Company decided to change the Constitution to require a super-majority for a judicial confirmation. Sixty votes. No less.
Does Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 provide for a super majority in any Senate proceedings Yes, but just one; the ratification of treaties. So there goes your argument that there is nothing wrong with requiring 60 votes to confirm a judicial nomination.
For two years now Daschle and Company have been preventing votes on the floor of the Senate for confirmation of many of Bush's judicial nominees. Never before in our history has a minority party prevented confirmation votes on judicial nominees that had the necessary majority vote waiting for them.
Never. The Democrats were showing a crass level of complete disrespect for the Constitution of the United States and for years of Senate tradition. We shouldn't be surprised, though. When it comes to reacquiring their Senate power, it is clear that neither the Constitution nor the successful conclusion to our war against terrorism and the restructuring of Iraq can be allowed to stand in the way.
As it turns out, the Constitution gives the president a bit of an out when the Senate is acting up like this. Move on to Clause 3. The president can make recess appointments. This Bush did with two judicial nominees that the Democrats had filibustered, Pryor and Pickering. You must know that this didn't sit too well with Daschle and Company. How dare the President of the United States use a constitutional procedure to prevent them from blocking a confirmation vote? Their response? They proceeded to bring virtually all presidential nominations, even the ones they liked, to a complete standstill.
Let's review here. I'm not trying to waste space, but there may be Democrats reading this column. In government schools, we must be careful not to leave them behind when we get into even the most moderately complicated situations. We will call this "back up and repeat essential points" as the "No Liberal Left Behind style of writing.
A. The Democrats modify the Constitution by requiring a super-majority vote for the confirmation of certain judicial nominees.
B. The president responds by using the perfect constitutionally legitimate exercise of making a recess appointment.
C. The Democrats, outraged at the president's legal use of his Constitutional authority, bring nearly all Senate business to a halt in retaliation.
D. The president promises to stop any further recess appointments during this term if the Senators will only do the job they were elected to do.
This is leadership When George W. Bush was sworn in he swore an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Just how are you preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution when you promise to stop using a constitutionally legitimate procedure to prevent political opponents from defying the Constitution.. and for this we get a quick confirmation of about 27 judicial nominees whom the Democrats didn&'t object to in the first place Wow!; What a deal!
Senate Democrats must be getting a real chuckle out of this in their private gatherings. Time after time they have rolled George Bush. Protectionist trade rules for the steel industry, obscene spending increases for hopeless government schools, even the left's current political showpiece of the 9/11 Commission hearings.
Thanks for your reasoned explanation-it makes the most sense.
WE really have a smart man in charge, and yes, we need to hammer to the libs the obstructionism!!!
Hey Neal, vote for Nader.
when a SC nomination comes up, it will be time for Bush to play hardball
Also, the nominees would likely prefer a normal appointment as opposed to a recess appointment, which may not last long. The Left uses the courts to bypass the legislative process and any way to fill vacancies with non-Liberals is OK as a stop-gap measure.
Exactly, in addition:
1. Were Bush to lose the election, none of these judges would ever be approved. Everything would be on hold until the next president comes into office.
2. If Bush wins the election, he can almost immediately return to recess appointments if the Dims still filabuster.
"The point is, the fundamental equation has not changed. The real battle is over the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court sets precedent for the lower courts to follow. While these lower posts are important, it's even more important to get conservatives on the High Court.
"
At this rate, it will NOT happen.
In 2000 there were various reports that at least 2 SC judges might retire for whatever reasons (health and age), but not a one has. Is it just a personal decision of the judges' to hang onto power and productivity as long as they can, or it is because they don't like the congressional enviroment for a successor? I really don't know.
He didn't!
Amen to that! And the first one I'd recommend for jettison would be Bill Frist. That guy has been patently useless.
you answered your own question. It's probably both: power and the Congress situation. The point is, we need to keep Bush so it's the libs who feel the pressure, not Rhenquist.
The President can't do everyone's job in DC...about time the GOP in Congress pull their own weight.
Okay .. here's the truth.
What the dems didn't know ahead of time was this: Bush had no plans to use the recess appointment before the end of the year. The reason probably was because none of his nominees was willing to take the "recess" appointment.
Therefore, the President could make the DEAL .. rope-a-doping the dems into giving him at least 25 of the judicial nominees.
I'm stunned everybody is so eagar and willing to dump on Bush .. what a bunch of fair weather voters.
VOTING FOR ANYONE OTHER THAN BUSH IS JUST UNTHINKABLE!!
I concur.I was here,shocked and awed into silence( a rare thing for me)at how many people here thought that having Frist take over would be a "good" thing.Truth to tell, he's been abysmal;just as I said he would be!
"This President is a genius. "
If the context is arranging his own re-election, then I agree. He is a politician, and this must be his highest priority.
If the context is sneaking in a cost increase of a new entitlement program of 30% of the previous month's estimate, which was used to sell the bill, he is as well.
For photo-ops, he is the best at least since RReagan.
For taking away democrat issues by passing democrat laws himself, I agree.
For showing budget discipline, willingness to veto appropriation bills, etc., he might be found a little lacking. How much has non-military spending grown since he came into office? How many vetos has he used? His admin. has been a party for congressional spending unlike any I have seen in my adult life.
If securing our southern border (for the children, if not homeland security) is one of your criterion, I do not agree.
Bush didn't cave. The ball is in Dasshole's court. If he doesn't give the 25 judicial nominees an up-or-down vote, that's Dasshole's fault, not Bush's. Dasshole wanted to move to other votes, and Bush merely told Tommy "Not until I've got up-or-down votes on this long backlog of judges". Bush is clearly in control. There's no caving in on Bush's part. Neal Boortz is a moron.
we all know how Daschle will respond. I will be surprised to see 25 judges confirmed.
Much akin to when Bush was working with Ted Kennedy, and now Kennedy is attacking Bush at every chance, including blaming him for passing his education bill, well hell, the two of them worked on it together.
after Bush gets these 25, I'd like to see him go to SD and saw we need Brown and Owen to get votes in the Senate. Put Daschle on the spot.
If I were prez, and the Senate ground all business to a halt, you can bet I'd be recess-appointing enthusiastically during the next recess!
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.