Posted on 05/11/2005 9:44:07 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants
George Will.
Thomas Oliphant.
Tucker Carlson.
I rest my case.
The part of the Constitution that says the Senate can make up its own internal rules of order also "MEANS WHAT IT SAYS."
This is not a Constitutional question.
SD
You misspelled genius.
BTW, according to Rush Limbaugh, Ken Starr also said the nuclear option is wrong.
If the 'Pubbies would just drag in the cots and make the Democrats stage a REAL filibuster, this would not be an issue.
"it's not a Constitutional question"
WHAT ..?? OF COURSE IT'S ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION.
The Constitution does not provide for 60 votes for judicial nominees. It does provide 60 votes for other types of legislation .. like treaties or agreements .. BUT NOT FOR JUDICIAL NOMINEES.
For 211 years JUDICIAL NOMINEES HAVE ONLY REQUIRED 51 VOTES - until - Tom Daschle CHANGED THE SENATE RULE - TO MAKE IT MANDATORY FOR 60 VOTES TO CONFIRM JUDICIAL NOMINEES ...... THAT IS UN-CONSTITUTIONAL!!!!!!!
The reason the dems changed the rule in 2003 was because they could see that all these judges nominated by Bush were more conservative than Bush's father nominated and Daschle just threw a tantrum and changed the rule to make it harder for the judges to get confirmed. The dems other scare is that when Scalia gets appointed as Chief - then one of these ultra conservatives will be appointed to take Scalia's place. FEAR HAS DRIVING THE DEMS TO COMMIT AN UN-CONSTITUTIONAL ACT.
What the republicans are going to do is CHANGE THE SENATE RULE BACK TO WHAT IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN.
A SENATE RULE CAN NEVER, EVER TRUMP THE CONSTITUTION - which is what the senate rule now does - and it needs to be changed back to conform with the requirements of the Constitution.
YES! IT IS A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE - NOTHING ELSE.
I go with the "all along" because for years and years the media never allowed the truth to be known.
Now that there is a "new media" - suddenly we are realizing the games these people play and most of us are not only sick of it - we want it to stop.
As a voter - I deserve a lot better than a federal representative who constantly smears my president and stabs people in the back.
This will be interesting, because the libs will interpret a strict constuctionist as a litmus test for anti-abortion. Remember, in the debate, the President promised he would not use abortion as a litmus test. That extrapolation can easily be made. In addition, the President also stated the nation is not ready to chuck abortion as we know it (not his exact words, but paraphrasing).
Leading Social Conservatives will be pressing, no demanding, a pro life/anti-abortion nominee in those words. Strict constructionist will not suffice. Again, fuel for the liberals. The Dobson's will be using strict construtionist, but the others who have less political savvy won't be.
In addition, if Thomas or Scalia is nominated to be the Chief Justice, liberals will be primed and ready to push back for a more moderate nominee to replace either Thomas or Scalia.
It will take the retirement of an O'Conner to shift the court to a more conservative court through a strict construtionist nominee.
Your compulsive use of ALL CAPS does little to make your argument any more persuasive.
The Democrats did not "change the rules" in 2003. They changed a custom, a practice. It was not unprecedented for a nominee to be fillibustered. It had happened before, but with good cause. The nominee had some ethical problems and was withdrawn.
So, you simply are speaking without the facts on your side.
The Democrats have been unprecedented in using the fillibuster tactic in such a blanket way over a slate of nominees and with no real reason other than to be obstructionist. But they did not "change the rules."
The Constitution requires the Senate to provide its advise and consent on the nominees. You are right that the Constitution does not require any supermajority. But it also does not describe what form this "advice and consent" must take. It has been Senate rules that have defined how this consent is given. This includes the function of the Judiciary committee, and other parliamentary workings of the Body. Including the fillibuster.
The Senate makes its own rules up, as the Constitution says it has this power. Nowhere does the Constitution say that a committee must approve of a nominee before he is allowed a floor vote. By your thinking, this means that the having nominees vetted by the Judiciary Committee is UN-CONSTITUTIONAL.
Of course it isn't.
SD
In other words their RULES must be CONSTITUTIONAL!!!
See this article. Plain Language
Well .. good luck with your opinion - I can't even make any sense of what you're saying.
I do have my facts straight. Too bad you are too blind to recognize the truth - or you are blind on purpose.
So is having a Judiciary Committee unconstitutional? Cause that's the argument being made here, that any procedural roadblock the Senate has in place is against the Constitution.
That's a silly argument, of course.
If a President nominates someone, must the Senate immediately vote on the floor on that person?
SD
If you're talking about Abe Fortas, he wasn't filibustered when he was first appointed to the federal bench. He was filibustered when being elevated to the Supreme Court.
Today's Democrats are filibustering the initial appointments to the bench.
-PJ
That much is obvious. It's really quite simple. The Senate is allowed to make its own rules. Parliamentary procedure is not unconstitutional. That's about as simple as I can make it.
I do have my facts straight. Too bad you are too blind to recognize the truth - or you are blind on purpose.
I am not blind and I do have the facts straight. I think the Senate is within its power to write its rules as it sees fit. I even think when they are being abused, like they are now, they have the right to change them. (They really shold have done so at the beginning of this session.)
I just don't pretend that they must do so because the Constitution requires that they not have this parliamentary procedure in place.
SD
Yes, thank you. That is a distinction and it shows how much the Democrats have upped the ante.
So it is a precedent in that way, but not in the idea in general of fillibustering appointments.
SD
What a hypocrite!
"The Senate is allowed to make its own rules"
You can't be that naive ..??
If that's true - they could rule that NOBODY GETS AN UP OR DOWN VOTE. That's a totally ridiculous statement and totally devoid of reality.
"A parlimentary procedure is not un-Constitutional"
YES IT CAN - IF IT GOES AGAINST WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS. Your conjecture has no logic.
"I just don't pretend that they must do so because the Constitution requires that they not have this parliamentary procedure in place."
Really ..?? But you just said that they could make any rule that they wanted .. and now suddenly you say that they don't have to change anything .. but they should have done it at the beginning of the session.
SO - WHICH IS IT ..?? You don't have any idea what you're talking about - you are arguing way over your head.
I'm done arguing with someone who doesn't even know what they're talking about.
But, the point is, you think Mr. Bush is conservative. Fair enough. I think, fairly enough also--and can give a huge list rebutting you--that Mr. Bush is not only not conservative, although he pays lip service to fool people into thinking he is, but he is, ostensibly paradoxically, destroying the Republican Party and certainly destroying the conservative movement in America.
I disagree with Mr. Will on the filibuster, but, truthfully, I don't think the fine points of the intent of the founders matter so much in this case.
Democrat judges have thrown the constitution in the dirt and been tramping back and forth over it for many years. This is a rare chance to get some honest judges who will restore some important freedoms. I just hope they get confirmed.
"Damn the filibuster! Full speed ahead!"
OldPro, I could not have said it better. He is the perfect RINO cheerleader from the Bob Dole era, always there to provide a sense of balance as the "loyal opposition" to the populist majority dems.
But he has no vision of leadership as the majority party.
And his historical insights are nothing more than irrelevent blather.
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.