1 posted on
04/14/2003 9:20:19 AM PDT by
xsysmgr
To: xsysmgr
I just submitted an article on this very subject, to be published by a Washington think tank in about two weeks. The bottom line is this: other than the one instance of a bipartisan filibuster of Johnson's nomination of Justice Fortas to move up to Chief Justice, the filibuster has not been used on judicial nominees. That means one exception in 214 years to the general rule that judicial nominees are approved or rejected by a majority vote in the Senate. Applying the filibuster means the Senate is amending the Constitution by force -- requiring 60 Senators to do what requires only 51 Senators per the Constitution.
There are two ways to solve this problem, not just for the Estrada and Owen nominations, but for all time. One way is to amend Senate Rule XXII (the Cloture Rule) to exempt judicial nominees. The other way is for a Senator to raise a Point of Order that Rule XXII cannot apply to a judicial nominee (because it alters the required vote). Then, Dick Cheney in the Chair as President of the Senate can rule that the filibuster cannot be applied to judicial nominees.
Points of Order are NOT debatable. And, any ruling of the Chair stands unless it is rejected by a majority of the Senators. That would be game, set and match, and the filibuster would no longer apply to ANY judicial nominee, now or in the future.
Congressman Billybob
Latest column, now up on UPI, and FR, "I Believe" (1957-2003)
Latest book(let), "to Restore Trust in America."
2 posted on
04/14/2003 9:32:11 AM PDT by
Congressman Billybob
("Saddam has left the building. Heck, the building has left the building.")
To: All
A Strong Kick To The Finish! (Leave The Left Behind)
|
|
Finish Strong. Donate Here By Secure Server
Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
or you can use
PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
|
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!
|
3 posted on
04/14/2003 9:34:21 AM PDT by
Support Free Republic
(Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
To: xsysmgr
When is a filibuster not a filibuster?
This happens only when the Republicans are in power - especially in the US Senate. Seems Frist, et. al., have forgotten that a day have 24 hours and a week 7 days - bring in the cots.
Imagine a "thrust" into the heart of the dim-0-crats' position - akin to the imagery from Iraq.
5 posted on
04/14/2003 9:38:34 AM PDT by
jamaksin
To: xsysmgr
Make 'em fillibuster the old fashioned way. No sleep, no bathroom breaks, nothing. If they want to 'fillibuster,' then make 'em do it.
17 posted on
04/14/2003 10:51:50 AM PDT by
MEGoody
To: xsysmgr
Bump.
18 posted on
04/14/2003 10:53:35 AM PDT by
k2blader
("Mercy, detached from Justice, grows unmerciful." - C. S. Lewis)
To: xsysmgr
I wish Evan Bayh was a Pubbie sometimes
25 posted on
04/14/2003 11:49:12 AM PDT by
Havoc
(Excersize your iq muscles, read Coulter)
To: xsysmgr
Harkin also explained why he's helping Democrats prevent a Senate vote on the confirmation of lawyer Miguel Estrada to a federal court judgeship.
Harkin told his colleagues he's heard that Estrada - who learned English after immigrating to America from Honduras, who graduated with honors from Harvard's law school, who was given the highest possible rating by the American Bar Association, a man Harkin's never met - might be a "right-wing kook."
Harkin also is outraged that Estrada refuses to answer senators' questions.
Senate records show Harkin has not asked a single question of Estrada.
To: Miss Marple; Howlin; PhiKapMom
If York is correct in his assessment then Owen may have a shot at being confirmed.... It is basically philosophical
that the are opposed to Owen. It will be interesting to see how many of the Democrat Senators will ultimately vote for cloture should it get that far.
28 posted on
04/14/2003 12:13:08 PM PDT by
deport
To: xsysmgr
Dear President Bush,
With the Surpeme Court session getting ready to close, it may well be time for perhaps the most important domestic decision of your presidency: the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice(s). The main reason why I supported you in 2000 and why I wanted Daschle out of power in 02 (and 04) has to do with the courts. I want America courts to interpret law, not write law. During your presidential campaign you said Thomas and Scalia were your two model justices. Those are excellent models. The High Court needs more like them. Clarence Thomas recently said to students that the tough cases were when what he wanted to do was different from what the law said. And he goes by the law. This should be a model philosophy for our justices. Your father, President Bush lost his reelection campaign for 3 main reasosn, as far as I can see. 1. he broke the no new taxes pledge 2. David Souter 3. Clinton convinced people we were in a Bush recession (which we had already come out of by the time Clinton was getting sworn in)
I urge you to learn from all three of these: 1. on taxes, you're doing great. Awesome job on the tax cut. 2. good job so far on judicial appointments. I want to see more of a fight for Estrada, Owen, and Pickering, but I commend you on your nominations. 3. by staying engaged in the economic debate you'll serve yourself well
I have been thoroughly impressed with your handling of al Queida, Iraq, and terrorism. You have inspired confidence and have shown great leadership.
But I want to remind you that your Supreme Court pick(s) will be with us LONG after you have departed office. I urge you to avoid the tempation to find a "compromise" pick. Go for a Scalia or Thomas. Don't go for an O'Connor or Kennedy. To be specific, get someone who is pro-life. Roe v Wade is one of the worst court decisions I know of, and it's the perfect example of unrestrained judicial power.
I know the temptation will be tremendous on you to nominate a moderate. But remember who your true supporters are. I am not a important leader or politician. I am "simply" a citizen who has been an enthusiatic supporter of you. I am willing to accept compromise in many areas of government but I will watch your Court nomiantions extremely closely. What the Senate Dems are doing right now is disgusting, but as the President you have the bully pulpit to stop it. Democrats will back down if you turn up serious heat on them.
Moreover, I think public opinion is shifting towards the pro-life position. Dems will want you to nominate a moderate, but almost all will vote against you anyways. Pro-choice Repubs will likely still vote for you if you nominate a Scalia, after all, you campaigned on it. So Mr. President, I urge you to stick with your campaign statements and nominate justices who believe in judicial restraint, like Scalia and Thomas.
Happy Memorial Day and may God bless you and your family.
38 posted on
05/29/2003 7:18:24 PM PDT by
votelife
(FREE MIGUEL ESTRADA!)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson