Posted on 11/11/2004 7:45:06 PM PST by factmart
The Constitution says a simple majority is all that is needed to confirm judges, so why not have the Supreme Court Decide?
Could any of my fellows freepers tell me why the Supreme Court can't fix this seeing how it's right in the Constitution ?
The supreme court isn't needed. The change can be done by the senate itself.
They fought against the "Term Limits" and won that against the will of the people. Never mind the fact what is not mentioned in the Constitution belongs to the States.
There are many other things but don't get me started! LOL
It's the Senate voting rules I believe. Frist needs to make the Dimms Filibuster the way their supposed to, No stop!! They can't leave the floor. This may be better stragety to follow this time with less Dimms in the Senate. Provided Frist has any Cajones. We have to speak to these jerks in a language they understand -- ,UPINYOUR FACE HARDBALL!!. Senator's like Frist and Hatch -- NO Cajones, No Backbone to make the Dimms Dance on the end of the string.
The Supreme Court only acts on cases that are brought before it. The Senate has not appealed to the Court for resolution, therefore the Supremes would be overstepping their authority to get involved.
Not only is the Supreme Court not needed, it has no authority over the matter.
Article I, Section 5, Clause 2: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings...
The rules governing debate are established by each House, and those rules are not subject to judicial review. And believe me, you don't want them to be.
Which makes it ridiculous that our pubs cave in at the mere mention of a filibuster. Make that fat slob Kennedy et al get up there and sweat away a few pounds.
I wouldn't trust SCOTUS for anything considering how they voted on several extremely important pieces of legislation that affected our culture. Down with SCOTUS!
You know, let's be honest. If we were the minority party, we'd be filabustering also. You do what you can. Of course, the media whores would headline "Republican Obstructionism" in every morning's headlines.
Separation of Powers.
True.
Such as passing laws and being except from it themselves. Unequal treatments.
Unequal treatments, yes. Unconstitutional, no. The Congress has plenary legislative power. It can write a law that exempts anyone, including, but not limited to themselves.
The rules governing debate are also not an example. In fact, it is an example of the Congress following the Constitution, which grants to each House the sole authority for making its own rules. The Constitution does not spell out in detail how Congress can do business, it would trivialize a great document to do so. So Congress must set its own rules. There are a great many rules that keep stupid things from ever reaching the floor. Believe me, with 535 prima donnas you really don't want the legislature to be able to act on the impulse of each and every jerk. It's antidemocratic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing. Most bills don't even get killed by 40 Senators, they die in committee.
Sorry, I'm for abolishing the Supreme Court. I don't want to give them any more power than they already have, which in my opinion is WAY-Y-Y too much.
I don't disagree. Very fortunately for us, the Republicans used the filibuster throughout the 1980's and into the 1990's. However, if I'm not mistaken, I believe the threat of filibuster has not been used against appointments to the Federal Bench ever before. It's traditionally been an instrument used to stop legislation. The filibuster is an instrument of obstruction (protecting the rights of the opposition, if you prefer), but in Bush's term it took a quantum leap.
Based on not so very long ago history, I'd say we wouldn't since we didn't very often, and at least we had to do real filibusters, as in actually holding the floor by talking continuously. Make the Dems at least do that much.
I so agree. I suggest checking out Catherine Crier's book the law, lawyers, politicians and the courts
Not true. The Republicans have never "filibustered" in this fasion.
They probably thought it was illegal.
The Republicans could take a lesson from the Dims who have no grace.
They'll lie about anything!
I actually enjoy that the dems have taken the gloves off and are fighting now with EVERY filthy weapon in their arsenal. We're STILL going to kick their sorry asses and they will have NOTHING, ZERO, left to hope for.
Actually, no, it doesn't. As FredZarguna correctly says in his posts on this thread, the manner of the Senate's confirmation is up to the Senate itself. All the Constitution *actually* says is that the President shall appoint judges (and other federal officers) "with the Advice and Consent of the Senate". But it does not actually specify the specific manner of the Senate's "Advice and Consent".
If the Senate decided to do it on a coin toss, or by rejecting all left-handed applicants automatically, they'd be within their Constitutional rights.
Please, folks -- the Constitution isn't very big, and easily searchable online. It takes but a moment to check what it actually does or does not say before posting some claim about 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.