Posted on 05/21/2005 9:06:37 AM PDT by gutted catfish
So if the majority party votes along party lines and gets nine of ten judges and the minority party uses the filibuster to stop one, that's "tyranny of the minority"? Of course, any Senator forced to choose between this "tyranny of the minority" and the alternate "oppression of the majority" would choose the latter every time.
In any case, both parties have practice similar "tyranny". Following is an excerpt from the article that I referenced in my last post:
But Hatch didn't mention the strategy he employed as Judiciary Committee chairman in the Clinton era. By changing panel rules, he ensured that many of Clinton's court choices would be stuck in committee. The new language decreed that anyone could be put on hold if either senator from the nominee's home state — in that era, presumably a Republican — filed an objection known as a "blue slip."
So, if 45 out of 100 Senators getting their way on one out of ten nominees is "tyranny of the minority", what is it when a single Senator can block an up or down vote by filing a "blue slip"?
what is it when a single Senator can block an up or down vote by filing a "blue slip"?
So, if 45 out of 100 Senators getting their way on one out of ten nominees is "tyranny of the minority",
Wrong, imo...... and I'd support correcting that, do you? But I won't support 'tyranny of the miniority' either. The majority rules except in a few cases spelled out in the Constitution whereby a super majority of some number is required.
Sure, I'll support eliminating the filing of "blue slips". However, I noticed that not a single one of those Senators so fervently concerned about having an up or down vote on every nominee mentioned, much less expressed an intention in correcting, the use of "blue slips".
In fact, both sides are fighting so hard on this issue because it presents a special problem. As I previously mentioned, that problem is that a President elected to a four-year term, perhaps assisted by Senators elected to six-year terms, are making lifetime appointments of judges. This leads to problems such as Supreme Court justices putting off retirement when the party they prefer is not in power or possibly retiring a little early when the party they prefer IS in power but an election is approaching. More troublesome, it motivates Senators to block nominations by opposing party Presidents toward the end of their terms in the hopes that their party's candidate will win the next election and be able to fill the posts. Finally, it makes the selection of judges much more of a lottery, dependent on whoever happens to be in power when the vacancies appear. If we effectively strip the minority party of all its leverage via the nuclear option, we will be more likely to end up with a Supreme Court stacked with conservative judges at one point in time and stacked with liberal judges at another. And, given enough time, both will happen.
I see your problem now.....
One out of ten.......? Up until the compromise of last night it was..... ten out of ten.
You're wrong. I never said that the minority party should be able to block ALL (or even most) of the President's nominees. In fact, I haven't heard ANYBODY ever suggest that. If you think I did, please point it out. Following is what I said:
From the little I've read on the matter, it seems that the Constitution does not spell out how the Senate should "advise and consent". For the long-term perhaps they could come up with a method by which each party consents on a percentage of the judges according to their numbers in the Senate. However, this may not be workable in the current framework and may just lead to a polarization of the court into very liberal and very conservative judges. Another possibility would be for the minority party to be allowed to reject a certain percentage of nominees, sort of like how lawyers are allowed to reject a certain number of potential jurors before a trial. Whatever the solution, I don't think that "tyranny of the majority" is the proper way to handle lifetime appointments.
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.