Replies

While the Federalist Papers do certainly say this, the author of this article (obviously) misinterprets the point. George W. Bush has not appointed cronies or stooges to the Court, which is what the Federalists were trying to get control over. Furthermore, the Democrats are not making a case against the candidates' in the sense that the Federalists were trying to stop - They are campaigning against all Conservative justices - Clearly wrong.

Once again, Democrats show their ignorance of the Constitutional process for dealing with the Executive, and clearly choose to ignore that we're a Federal Republic..

Morons...

:) ttt

The most succedssful lies are those which contain some truth, to conceal the central lie. This article is an example.
I practice in the Supreme Court. I've spent decades reading and researching on the actions and intentions of the Framers. Here, however, the lie is on the surface for those who read with care.
As the two quotes from the state, the "advise and consent" power of the Senate over the judicial nominees of the President were given to "the Senate," not to any Committee of the Senate. And Pickering would have been approved by the Senate if the Democrat leaders had followe3d and obeyed these statements from the Federalist and ever permitted the whole Senate to vote.
I do not believe that the reporters and editors of this Dallas birdcage liner are so stupid as to have missed the point that "advise and consent" is for the whole Senate, not just a Committee of the Senate. Therefore, I conclude that they know what they are doing, and are DELIBERATELY LYING to their readers.
Pathetic. But no surprise.

Congressman Billybob

Click here to fight Campaign Finance "Reform/".

Click here for next column: "Why Are We Here?" - the Prequel.