Posted on 12/03/2004 12:50:28 PM PST by Congressman Billybob
And it's pity an evenhanded report is not of interest to the fourth estate.
IF so, could you freepmail me with what you would like me to put in the From: Ie; name, name an address? whatever.
Jake
IF so, could you freepmail me with what you would like me to put in the From: Ie; name, name an address? whatever.
Jake
Of course you may run this as a guest editorial. I'll Freep mail you the info.
John
I'm going to pose two topic related questions which I haven't seen addressed...
1. When the Dems attempt to justify their obstructing Bush's nominations, they always trot out the stat..they've confirmed 95% of them..whatever the numbers are..210 out of 220..YET the GOP never comes back and pounds the point about the % of appeals court judges that have been filabustered. WE need to frame the argument better..and it's so easy to do..
2. Re the nuclear option, last year there was a Senate hearing before the Rules subcomittee, I believe. It was on C-span, and is probably in their archives.. Sen Cornyn testified, and he made the point that the Senate is NOT a continuing body..therefore the rules don't apply to the next Senate, unless by unanimous consent..which has been done every time, of habit. He said that because he was NOT elected when these rules were adopted, in effect HIS constituents in Texas are being denied their constitutional rights. I may not be expressing this correctly, but it was a very compelling, and cogent argument. Again, why isn't the GOP making it..? It wuld seem to be one that peopel could easily grasp. The Dems are attempting to equate Senate custom with constitutional procedure in the public mind..If Frist is indeed going nuclear, as I also believe he should, the GOP needs to start making the case IN ADVANCE..prepping the battlefield so to speak..
Once again, John, nice work. Frankly, there are two reasons why the Republicans haven't done this yet...
1. I'm not sure all Republicans were on board with the nuclear option before (Snowe, Specter, Chafee, etc.)
2. Until this past election, I think some of them thought they might need to use the filibuster soon themselves. I think they wonder if, in the future, they become the minority, will they regret killing it.
Frankly, principle is principle. If you win the election, to the victor go the spoils. Just don't lose future elections...
By the way Mark Levin has discussed this too.
It's a matter of principle.
The President appoints judges subject to an up or down vote in the Senate, and both the President and the potential appointee deserve that and nothing more. This principle will serve us well regardless of the party in power in the Executive or holding the balance of power in the Senate.
And - it is the voters in the end who control who is President and who sits in the Senate.
If we want judges that will look to the Constitution to find Law, and not to some translation of a book by Wolfgang von Goethe, Friedrich Nietzsche, or some other European statist, ala Justice Breyer, then lets remember that it is we who decide, every time we vote.
I'll take your word that she's a good choice, and I like seeing the names thrown out, but I want Bush to apply a pride-anihilating b****slap to Chuckie & Co. first by sending Miguel Estrada and Janice Brown up 1 and 2. When he get's a third and possibly 4th choice then I'm wide open as to who gets nominated.
An excellent point....
I sent this to Frist and Chambliss a few weeks back:
Dear Sen. Frist:
You need to say something along the lines of the following as you open the new Session of Congress:
Our Senate has a rich history that includes both written rules and unwritten traditions regarding those rules. The filibuster is one item that has such written rules and unwritten traditions.
Until now, it has been an unwritten tradition that the minority party never used the filibuster rule to block the confirmation of a judicial appointment when the votes to confirm were present on the floor.
Since the current minority party has elected to ignore this unwritten tradition repeatedly, we have no choice but to write this unwritten tradition into the rules of the Senate to prevent such abuse in the future.
Henceforth, we are adding to the written filibuster rule what has always been the practice until very recently -- the filibuster cannot be used to block a vote on confirmation of a Judicial appointment.
Some have called this the "nuclear" solution but it is really the minority party, previously headed by the obstructionist leadership, who has "nuked" 200 years of tradition. We are merely stopping their attack, kind of like Judicial SDI.
Rob XXX
Norcross, GA
"Jefferson stated it succinctly in saying that no legislature has the authority to bind the next legislature."
The only Jefferson statement the Democrats seem to want to acknowledge and quote ad infinitum is his unfortunate phrasing in his letter to the Baptists alluding to what he called "the separation of church and state."
If it supports their self-serving interpretation of the Constitution, then they use it. Don't count on it if his words might serve to "nuke" their opposition to strict constitutionalists for the Supreme Court, however.e
"Jefferson stated it succinctly in saying that no legislature has the authority to bind the next legislature."
The only Jefferson statement the Democrats seem to want to acknowledge and quote ad infinitum is his unfortunate phrasing in his letter to the Baptists alluding to what he called "the separation of church and state."
If it supports their self-serving interpretation of the Constitution, then they use it. Don't count on it if his words might serve to "nuke" their opposition to strict constitutionalists for the Supreme Court, however.
It's not sad. It's inexcusable. It also verges on the criminal. But there is more "criminality" involved here than meets the eye.
It is also criminal the way the Constitution is taught not only in public schools but also in distinguished law schools. One would think the plain words of such a succinct an incredibly important document would be understandable to the average teacher or professor, much less the average high school student.
Apparently not, but not because of any fault of our Founding Fathers.
Liberals are happy to delve everybody endlessly into such things as "sexual studies", but defer from matters of profound national importance. After all, a correct reading of the Constitution is the last thing on their minds. They certainly don't want it on anyone else's mind, either.
You're almost "there". My spellchecker counts 751 words so you only need tighten up a bit more (however, it may be counting 's as one word, so you may be OK). ;~)
Consider if the President were to make recess appointments of judges and justices denied an up or down vote in the Senate by a minority through the strategem of the filibuster: The scheme of the Constitution for an independent and co-equal judiciary would be subverted as the judiciary would come to be populated by temporarily-appointed judges and justices.
Up to now, the potential impact of the Senate to undermine the judiciary through its rules has been merely theoretical. Senators, in their wisdom, had not used the fillibuster to kill judicial appointments until recently. To be sure, sometimes the filibuster was used to delay a vote when additional time was thought useful for the investigation of appointees, or for publicity concerning them to work its effect. This is altogether different from the use of the filibuster to kill appointments.
The actual use of the filibuster to kill appointments, forcing the President to make recess appointments, being an affront to the frame of the Constitution, might be considered as unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court might then decide that any candidate receiving a majority vote in an attempt to break a filibuster, not subsequently given an up or down vote within a set period of debate, and then given a recess appointment by the President, would be accorded a lifetime appointment under certain conditions.
The Supreme Court might ask the Senate what it might recommend be the procedure in such a case and, in a sense, open a dialogue with the Senate, to communicate to the Senate the gravity of the matter.
Of course, such a dialogue might also communicate to the people of the United States that certain Senators, e.g., Hairy Reid of Nevada, the new minority leader, that they continue to thwart the will of the majority at their own peril.
Thanks for the Article Billybob
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.