The Liberal Democrats just don't like these judges because they don't think our USConstituion should be molded like sillyPutty around sillyLiberal ideals.
Posted on 05/15/2005 4:58:11 AM PDT by billorites
THE MISINFORMATION being spread about the current abuse of the filibuster to block U.S. judicial nominations is awesome. Given the importance of the fight, however, it is not surprising.
The idea that the Senate Democrats are merely employing the "checks and balances" built into our system of government is hogwash and insulting to the intelligence of the American people.
It is our three distinct branches of government — executive, legislative, and judicial — that hold each other in check and balance. What the Democratic Party is doing is to misuse the filibuster rule so that a minority in the Senate can frustrate that branch from its constitutional duty of providing "advice and consent" to the President on appointments.
How can the Senate advise the President if it cannot even be allowed to vote on his nominations?
Further, the claim that Republicans have misused the filibuster to similarly block up-or-down votes on judicial nominations is also hogwash. The Republicans have played by the rules. They have defeated judicial nominations by up-or-down votes, either in committee or before the full Senate. The single instance in modern times when they employed a filibuster was in the celebrated case of Justice Abe Fortas, whom members of Lyndon Johnson's own majority Democrats couldn't stand, either.
Neither the Senate nor the Constitution envisioned use of the filibuster to halt up-or-down votes on judicial appointments. It is the Democrats who are breaking the rules and the Republicans have finally come close to calling them on it. If a deal is not struck soon, the GOP is prepared to rule this chicanery "out of order," which it most assuredly is.
New Hampshire Senators Judd Gregg and John Sununu understand what is at stake here. The Democrats are trying to thwart the will of the voters, who want judicial extremism stopped. With more than one U.S. Supreme Court appointment in the offing, this is a fight that must be won now.
When Clinton was in office Senate committees would routinely refuse to hold hearings on some of his nominees that they viewed as too liberal. Yhey played by the rules then. Like it or not, the Democrats are playing by the rules not. If you don't like the rules then change them.
They'd never get away with this lie without the MSM! Someone better than I should look up what those slimes were saying when 'RATs were in the majority and filllibusters could have been used by the GOP. I'd bet they were all against it then!
Gotta agree with you. The rules allowed Republicans to block Clinton's nominees and the rules allow Democrats to filibuster Bush nominees.
Nothing in the constitution guarantees a full Senate vote on any judicial nominee.
And, changing the filibuster rule is extremely rash and shortsighted.
Have you read and understood what the editorial said? The title is entirely misleading. The point of the editorial is that the DEMOCRATS are LIEING and PERVERTING the way the approval process is supposed to work.
What does "advise and consent" mean to you? Do you see the irony in overlooking these words in the Constitution in order to allow the filibustering of these nominees to continue, in order that the activist judiciary can continue to read abortion and gay marriage into the Constitution?
"...activist judiciary can continue to read abortion and gay marriage into the Constitution?"
I understand the abortion reference, but not the gay marriage one. When did a court read gay marriage into the US Constitution?
I am not referring to a specific incident yet with respect to the U.S. Constitution. Given the rationales under which like minded state judges have read a right of gay marriage into state constitutions (see e.g., Massachusetts), combined with the proclivities of federal judges to extract new rights from overseas law, "equal protection" and the "penumbra of emanations," I see the "recognition" of the right to gay marriage in the Constitution as inevitable in the federal courts, unless the judges are checked.
The Liberal Democrats just don't like these judges because they don't think our USConstituion should be molded like sillyPutty around sillyLiberal ideals.
Yes I read the article, and my point is that the same "advise and consent" argument that's used to justify why nominees shouldn't be filibustered, could also have been used against GOP Senators who blocked Clinton appointees. As far as the system being "perverted" by the Dems, why is the system being "perverted" now, but it wasn't when Clinton appointees were blocked?
My entire point is that this move to stop filibustering judicial nominees is extremely shortsighted. Yes, it will accomplish Bush's nominees being confirmed in spite of the minority, but the GOP will eventually rue the day they did away with judicial filibusters. That you can bet on.
This is a classic, textbook case of be careful what you ask for because you just might get it.
By the time that republicnas would rue the day that they blocked filibustering judicial nominations, I submit that the filibuster would not be relevant because looking at the makeup of the courts as they will be slated, any judge appointed will be in no postion to undo what the prospective courts have already done.
Looking at the current trend most states are going red, and those that are going purple are going from purple to red not red to purple. The trend is for conservtives. Besides, if the donks held a workable majortiy they would deploy the nuke themselves, because they were the party who used filibusters to defeat conservative nominees in the first place, after being aginst such measures 6 or 7 years ago.
The GOP has every reason to pull the trigger here.
Good point. This will become a moot issue for decades. By then I probably won't care as I won't live to be 100+.
Exaclty.
"Yes I read the article, and my point is that the same "advise and consent" argument that's used to justify why nominees shouldn't be filibustered, could also have been used against GOP Senators who blocked Clinton appointees. As far as the system being "perverted" by the Dems, why is the system being "perverted" now, but it wasn't when Clinton appointees were blocked?"
_____________
Because the Clinton appointees were opposed by a majority of the Senate. Therefore, the Senate was well within its rights to block nominees, because the full Senate would not have approved.
Do you see how different the situation is between the Senate witholding its consent (in the Clinton scenario) and a minority of Senators preventing a majority from approving the president's nominees?
Of course, and I say this for the sake of argument, lacking an up or down vote by the full Senate, we don't know that what you say above is true or not. We can speculate based on news reports, but there never was a full up or down vote on some Clinton appointees. In several cases, there were never any committee hearings as the appointee's home state GOP Senator put a hold on the appointment according to the rules of the Senate. (Note that the constitution says nothing about Senators having this right.) But there is nothing on the record as to the sense of the Senate on confirming Clinton's judicial appointees that were never confirmed.
Do you see where this can go? This could backlash against the GOP. But there also could be an equal chance that people will just get very apathetic and not participate because of what they see as "politics as usual".
but the GOP will eventually rue the day they did away with judicial filibusters. That you can bet on.
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.