Posted on 05/24/2005 8:14:07 PM PDT by AndyMeyers
The "Compromise" on Judicial Nominations is Unconstitutional
The sellout by the seven John McCain-led Republicans on judicial nominations has undermined the majority rule of the Republican Party. The Democrats have a right to celebrate they won on all counts. By agreeing to allow votes on three of the ten Bush nominees the Democrats ensure their ability to filibuster all judicial nominees.
The Republican grassroots has worked extremely hard for thirty years to make the Republican Party the Majority Party in both Houses and the Executive Branch. And they are going to resent the sellout by McCain and his merry band of turncoats. The Majority Party should act like a Majority Party. The Republicans won at the polls but are losing at governing because of outsized egos like McCain's. Frist needs to take back control of the Republican Majority by disciplining McCain and the other turncoats.
The seven Republicans are: John McCain - Arizona; Lindsey Graham - South Carolina; John Warner - Virginia; Mike DeWine - Ohio; Susan Collins - Maine; Olympia Snow - Maine; Lincoln Chafee - Rhode Island.
Despite what the Republicans say about no filibuster of judicial nominees, except for extraordinary circumstances, the Democrats have signaled their intent to filibuster any Bush judicial nominee who is a conservative with statements like "The integrity of the Supreme Court has been protected from the undue influence of the vocal, radical right wing" uttered by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D) - Nevada. The fact is that the Senate in its 214-year history has never filibustered a judicial nomination to the Supreme Court or to one of the other federal courts.
The Memorandum of the Compromise states in part "..We believe that, under Article II, Section 2, of the United States Constitution, the word "Advice" speaks to consultation between the Senate and the President with regard to the use of the President's power to make nominations.." The Democrats and seven Republicans are telling the President that he has to consult with them before he nominates any candidate for a federal judicial appointment. The Senators also believe that they can make a rule providing for the filibuster of judicial nominations.
The Democrats and the seven Republicans are simply wrong on their claims that the Senate has equal authority with the President on judicial nominations and that the Senate can require 60 votes to "advise and consent" on appointing judicial nominees.
Article II Section 2 Clause 2 of the Constitution states:
"He (President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers (inferior federal courts) of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."
The language of Article II is clear on nominating Judges of the Supreme Court and inferior courts. The President nominates first and then the Senate "Advises and Consents" on appointments. The Constitution does not provide for any involvement by the Senate in judicial nominations. It provides only for the Senate's advice and consent on appointments.
Article II requires the concurrence of two-thirds of Senators present for approving treaties but it omits the two-thirds requirement for appointing judges. This omission has to be deliberate, given that the two different "Advice and Consent of the Senate" requirements occur in the same sentence of the same Clause and Section of the Constitution. The drafters and ratifiers of the U.S. Constitution clearly intended for the President's judicial appointments to be approved by a simple majority of the Senators present. In today's case that is 51 Senators, not 60. There can be no other reasonable interpretation of the language.
A Senate rule providing for filibustering judicial nominations does not trump the Constitution.
The actions of the Democrats and seven Republicans are simply unconstitutional.
The Republican grassroots need to retire the "seven" turncoats in the next election.
The American public should reject the unconstitutional actions of the Democrats and ignore the dominant media on this issue.
I can agree with that.
The action these fourteen Senators did was much more than vote in a block. They actually wrote a compromise that will effect future and immediate appointments and nomination procedures for a long time. Their actions , in the name of even handedness and expediency , have in reality tilted the hand of the majority party to that of a lesser one, in turn taking away the power of the president in office to make appointments that will tend to balance the views of judges in office that have been placed by previous presidents. Since these things seem to be cyclical , they have in effect flattened the tire.Some Senators truly do reflect their constituents opinions in that they are short sighted and do not have the good of the whole in mind.
Odd that:
1. President praised some of this today
2. The majority leader did not scream bloody murder but did remind the minority that rules changes are still possible if they filibuster in the future.
What matters ultimately here is results. If all the nominees get floor votes, the GOP won big here.
I'm all for throwing out the Reps and Senators - both Republican and Democrat. I thnk we should elect Reps and Senators who we KNOW will abide by and defend the US Constitution. A favorit6e Son or Daughter type of Candidate. No political party affiliation needed.
We started this counry with down to earth people, now we have POOR Democrats like Kennedy and the rest of the Eletist - living in million dollar homes in DC, passing laws that are making our lives miserable and selling our freedoms to the New World Order. They have squandered enough of our Taxes on every program for every country in the world, and now they will not even protect our own borders. Passing laws that force us by their laws to accept filthy practices of homosexuality and lesbianism. I am very sick of the whole damn bunch - we need to change the oil in DC.
I'm all for throwing out the Reps and Senators - both Republican and Democrat. I thnk we should elect Reps and Senators who we KNOW will abide by and defend the US Constitution. A favorit6e Son or Daughter type of Candidate. No political party affiliation needed.
We started this counry with down to earth people, now we have POOR Democrats like Kennedy and the rest of the Eletist - living in million dollar homes in DC, passing laws that are making our lives miserable and selling our freedoms to the New World Order. They have squandered enough of our Taxes on every program for every country in the world, and now they will not even protect our own borders. Passing laws that force us by their laws to accept filthy practices of homosexuality and lesbianism. I am very sick of the whole damn bunch - we need to change the oil in DC.
I don't know how this is going to turn out and frankly I am so pissed for the moment I don't care. All I know is that I will do everything in my power to make sure those weasels in the gang of seven pay with their Senate seats.
And we wait. While we wait , each party claims victory , which is the desired result in a compromise . But can there truly be two winners ?
I find it hard to believe Judge Bork said that. By this logic the Senate can mandate a 2/3rds vote or 3/4ths or hell even a UNANIMOUS vote before approving the nominee.
The US Senate makes their own rules but those rules MUST be within the bounds of the US CONSTITUTION not outside of it.
Can there be two winners? Maybe. Let's see:
1. The GOP gets up or down votes on all the judicial nominees, Bolton confirmed, no filibuster of future judicial nominees in the 109th Congress including US Supreme Court Nominees.
2. The Dims claim to their supporters that they saved the filibuster, Senate, Constitution, World, Universe, take you pick. They are not publically neutered by the GOP changing the rules. They claim they matter.
The question will be what happens from here. Do all 10 or 15 appeals court nominees get up or down votes? If so the GOP won. Do only the 3 specifically mentioned nominees get up or down votes and the Dims filibuster again immediately, then maybe the GOP got snookered. But again the GOP can act immediately and maybe got the 3 plus Bolton confirmed more quickly than they would have been without this deal.
Exactly right!
Agree. HOW the Senate performs its duties or regulates ITSELF becomes an issue only when it affects the government as a whole (viz., denying the President the ability to exercise his Constitutional duty & privileges). The tyranny of 14 affects the government as a whole--not to mention the nation.
You assume that people can and do actually read, and care about these issues. Sadly, they clearly do not.
The RINO 7 specifically committed themselves not to vote for the constitutional option for the entire term of the 109th Congress. They will keep that commitment, not because they have one scintilla of honor among them, but because they don't want a conservative judiciary any more than the Democrats do. That means that the Democrats can, and probably will, filibuster practically all conservative judicial appointments Bush sends up for the next year and a half and Frist's big gun will not be loaded.
Excellent point!
However, most of our elected officials are lawyers. They can read, and they know exactly what the Constitution says and means. They don't care, and they will never acknowledge it, and they will lie about it, because it stands between them and accomplishing their agendas.
We do agree that we must wait and we agree upon the points for scoring this game. If your opinion of the Dims view of a win is correct then they are settling for more form over substance, useful for pulling the wool over eyes but not much else.I could only hope that this is all they could gain from "The Compromise".
If your opinion of the Dims view of a win is correct then they are settling for more form over substance
_______________________________________________________
The Dims going for form over substance, who could have ever imagined it? Right?
maybe you should listen to what Bork said one more time ...
Even if Congress could pass a rule that any nominee who didn't get 60 votes would be rejected, would that give the Senate the right to sit on nominations without rejecting them? That, after all, is what filibustering is all about.
Actually, if the Democrats filibuster someone who any who are not extreme, then this frees the Senate to rewrite the rules.
Of course at first the Senate did not have the filibuster option. The first Senate rules had a simple majority vote to cut off debate and move the previous question.
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.