Posted on 01/31/2006 2:58:11 PM PST by NormsRevenge
--
Contributors Sherry and Steven Eros
Sherry Eros, MD, is a neuropsychiatrist and Steven Eros is a philosopher. They are conservative columnists and proprietors of the blog Eros Colored Glasses.
I believe that senate rule requiring a super-majority (cloture) passes constitutional muster, so long as it only takes a majority vote to repeal said rule.
I think you might have a point but that's getting in too deep for me.
Maybe, but who is going to stop dems when they pull crap like this? I was just over at DU and one of the libs actually "got it". He said that if the dems set this precedent (filibustering over ideology, not qualifications), that they'd be more than sorry when the repubs repay in kind someday.
Or visit the Library of Congress on the web.
When the next Senate is seated, after the elections of 2006, the Senate must adopt its rules, binding on all Senators for the next session.
After all this filibuster aggravation, I think the Republicans would be supremely foolish if they re-adopt this rule that lets filibusters happen for appointments.
That rule should NEVER be part of the next Congress. It only takes 51 votes to adopt the rules, so they should adopt a rule in this regard that ends this silly charade.
"An analysis of the Democrats’ use of the judicial filibuster reveals that it is not only unconstitutional but conflicts with the role of the Senate as conceived in the United States Constitution."
Well, I'll be...
What a shock!
You don't mean?
Oh my. There's goes another world view...
The Senate rule has always applied to Legislative matters.
"All you have to do is read the Constitution. It is very clear on the Advise and Consent vote"
I've read that section many times and it couldn't be clearer to me that it only takes a majority vote to confirm.
The Senate is considered to be a continuing body. Ergo, the rules carry over from Congress to Congress - unlike the House, which effectively ceases to exist, every two years.
Except for Democrats.
But they hardly seemed to be able to make the case that it is unconsitutional. Most of it is full of question-begging about how "Senate rules can't conflict with the Constitution", which no one at all denies. What they'd need to demonstrate is that the rule does conflict with the Constitution. They could make their essay much shorter and to the point if they avoided trying to "prove" plainly obvious statements over and over again.
Actually I just now noticed this:
"Sherry Eros, MD, is a neuropsychiatrist and Steven Eros is a philosopher."
That explains it. Not much need to wade further.
In the summer of 1968, LBJ tried to pack the Supreme Court with two picks including Abe Fortas for Chief Justice just months prior to the presidential election. Senate Republicans threatened a filibuster if the DemocRATS tried to bring those nominations to the floor. I think that was a justifiable use of the threat of a filibuster on judicial nominations. The Senate then agreed to let the new incoming president make the appointments after the election.
bump
That is the game played by the elites in this "Two-Party Cartel". They won't allow a true conservative agenda to flourish as it works against them.
I would argue that the Senate has an affirmative duty to accept or reject candidates put before it. If the Senate were to pass a rule at the start of its term mandating that all candidates would be rejected if they did not receive unanimous consent, I would argue that would be constitutional, but the purpose of a filibuster is not to accept or reject candidates, but rather to keep them from being acted upon one way or the other. And that, IMHO, constitutes deriliction of duty.
Filibustering of legislation generally does not pose the same problem, btw, because with very few exceptions there's no constitutional imperative to pass or even consider legislation. To be sure, I don't think congresscritters would have much fun if they never considered any legislation beyond what was Constitutionally required, but postponing indefinitely the discussions of non-required legislation falls entirely within legislative prerogative.
I would like somebody to explain to me how filibusters are unconstitutional. There is nothing in the constitution that governs the length of debate in the senate. (Check it out yourself.. http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html) The 60 votes needed to end debate is a senate rule and senate rules require a supermajority of 67 votes to change. This simple majority "nuclear option" stuff is nonsense and can only occur because the senate has no oversight. (The Parlimentarian opposes it for Gods sake). And for it to be unconstitutional for judicial nominations but not for anything else?!? Here's the actual text of the advise and consent clause. "Advise and consent" is kind of vague, and given the preceding sentence, you could take it to mean a two thirds majority being that "advise and consent" for treaties is spelled out to mean exactly that.
He 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 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.
No Senate can bind a future Senate, look it up.
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.