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.
BORK: What is happening is that the Democrats are going to try to prevent judges who follow the real meaning of the Constitution from getting on the bench. That's what the filibuster is about. There hasn't been any filibusters like this ever. It's always been a majority vote in the Senate.
from the Fox website, transcript of Bork on Hannity and Colmes.
This cabal between the Seven Dwarf-brains is going to fall apart and make the Republican saps look like the fools they are.
We should have considered this while we were "blue slipping" all those Clinton appointees. Then again, foresight and turnabout has never been the strong suit of pols and partisans.
Good point. It's even simpler than that. If we simply followed the Cocstitution and never resorted to subterfuges like blue-slipping and philibusters these things wouln't be an issue.
Funny... but I do not recall any Freepers expressing this point of view when Jesse Helms refused to even hold a hearing on William Weld's nomination to be Amb to Mexico.
I was not among that company. See post 43.
And you did a dang good job of it.
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.