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
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..
"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
If the President has reason to believe either that there aren't the votes for the nucular [sic] option or that Frist could break the filibuster, then he needs to appoint someone the Senate wouldn't dare filibuster, much like FDR knew the Senate couldn't reject Senator Hugo "KKK" Black. I think GWB needs to make a Black-like appointment anyway -- someone who will work to change the Court (for the better, this time).