(DAY-2) LIVE U.S. SENATE "Nuclear" THREAD: for judicial nominations: C-span 2 - 9:30 am EST

http://www.c-span.org ^ | http://www.c-span.org | http://www.c-span.org

[davidosborne]

Text Credit to Ken5050: DAY-1 THREAD

Welcome, all you Freepers, to the continuing C-span soap operas about judicial nominations. "The Guiding SEARCHLIGHT, " "As the SENATE Turns, "One NOMINATION to Live" "GERIATRIC Hospital" (for all you Byrd and Lautenberg fans out there). Follow along with us, as the Dems raise the level of histrionics, bloviation, pontification, and all around bad acting to new highs, er, lows...

[davidosborne]

John Cornyn (R-Tx)

[ArmstedFragg]

Let me know what graphics you liked and I will post them.

Nah, just kidding... but not about that Brownback speech, it's a 'good-un'. It just seems like every time the Dems are trying to sell the public on something they dig out graphics like that Leahy thing you posted that seem to be aimed for those with room temperature IQ's. Then again, they know their constituency...

[ONETWOONE]

If I can't have an up or down vote, regardless who is President, I'm through voting. It's plain and simple. The rats are complaining what this nuclear option would do harm to the Senate. Gag me....Look what they have already done to it. A few power brokers stopping the will of the people. Republican leadership don't let us down. If you do, there will be droves of us looking away the next time or looking for another independent party.

[davidosborne]

lol

[davidosborne]

My suggestion is that we work towards a 60 VOTE Republican Majority.. then we can work on replacing the RINOS...

[restornu]

Robert Bird traded his KKK Sheets for a

Bird gives the Marist Salute!

The Times profile of Byrd is accompanied by the photo above by Doug Mills with the caption: "Senator Robert C. Byrd, after speaking at a MoveOn.org rally last month in Washington, defending the use of the filibuster to block judicial nominees." Only a fellow as supremely lacking in self-awareness as Senator Byrd can miss the inadvertent allusion to the black power salute of the late 1960's in Byrd's gesture, or to the "right on" salute of the radical left of the same period, or other more remote historical precedents that Senator Byrd himself loves to invoke against his Republican opponents. Sunday, April 3, 2004

War Blog By FrontPage Magazine FrontPageMagazine.com | April 4, 2005

[slowpipe]

Then We'll find out from what Sen. Frist is made.

[davidosborne]

exactly...

[ONETWOONE]

Good point. I guess I can start by changing my residence from a liberal New England state (I live overseas for years) and my folks are now gone. I had lived and worked in the Ft Walton Beach area of Florida for years and will work on changing residency for next election.

[davidosborne]

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A REAL FILIBUSTER.... 24hrs a day, 7 Days a week !

[Da Mav]

Wot, no Arlen Specter? Did I miss some good news?

[Da Mav]

Illustrative of the Democrat Party idea of "mainstream"

[beyond the sea]

Won't be able to watch, but I am thankful to all you excellent FReepers for passing along your impressions of events.

Stay tough, Republicans. Don't give in.

[beyond the sea]

Right now I'm watching CNN present their four minute "bio" of Janice Brown on their "news" show. It is nearly completely and solitarily a hit piece.... "combative, extremist ......etc". From this four minutes you would think she is the worst.

I hate the liberal/socialist/Dem media!

[greasepaint]

Is there some reason that the Republicans don't force
the Democrats to mount a real filibuster?

My other suggestion is, the Republicans should
introduce a motion of no confidence
in rules adopted by earlier Senates.

[OXENinFLA]

Thurs. PING!!

[AFPhys]

Breaking the Rules: The Framers intended no more than a Senate majority to approve judges.

Here's the article I mentioned in Post#2671. It IS from NRO, and it DOES contain the side-by-side comparison and the dates that the judicial appt's question was brought before the Constitutional Convention.

It is too easy to lose information on FR nowadays - even if it has been posted here...

Someone Please post this early on in the live thread tomorrow - I have an early meeting and think it should be looked at by many. I have to go now... toodles... Excerpt:

On June 13, 1787, it was originally proposed that judges be “appointed by the national Legislature,” and that was rejected; Madison objected and made the alternative motion that appointments be made by the Senate, and that was at first approved. Madison specifically proposed that a “supermajority” be required for judicial appointments but this was rejected. On July 18, Nathaniel Ghorum made the alternative motion “that the Judges be appointed by the Executive with the advice & consent of the 2d branch,” (following on the practice in Massachusetts at that time). Finally, on Friday, September 7, 1787, the Convention approved the final Appointments Clause, making the president primary and the Senate (alone) secondary, with a role of “advice and consent.”

Obviously, this question is something that the Framers carefully considered. The Constitution and Supreme Court decisions are quite clear that only a majority is necessary for confirmation. Neither the filibuster, nor a supermajority vote, is part of the Advice and Consent role in the U.S. Constitution. Until the past four years, the Senate never did otherwise.

After discussion, the Framers of The Constitution clearly intended majority advise/consent approval of the Senate in this case to be sufficient, and wrote it that way, and ratified the document in this form.

Up until now (two years or so ago), that was always understood, and it was the only provision ever voted on in the history of the country regarding this issue. If they wish to change that, the Senate and House must muster a 2/3 majority to start to AMEND the Constitution.

That is why C. Borden Grey pointed out that the filibuster was NOT available during the Clarence Thomas process.

Paragraph from Bill Kristol's May 9 column:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/551vzoao.asp?pg=2

This is why the filibuster has historically not been used on nominations. This is the constitutional logic underlying 200-plus years of American political practice. This is why as recently as 14 years ago the possibility of filibustering Clarence Thomas, for example, was not entertained even by a hostile Democratic Senate that was able to muster 48 votes against him. The American people seem to grasp this logic. In one recent poll, 82 percent said the president's nominees deserve an up or down vote on the Senate floor.

Also, see THIS article by McCarthy on NRO: Confessing Error asserted that filibustering judges did not violate the constitution in November. CONFESSING ERROR. His argument is circuitous enough that it appears to be a legal opinion rather than an easily accessible article, but he has clearly thought about this a great deal now, unlike his earlier writings - his words, not mine.

If you have a mind for legalese and enjoy a challenge, take a look at it.

"...the power of the president to make appointments is explicitly spelled out in the constitution. By blocking it, the Senate is thus effectively denying the executive his indisputable authority." ...

"Filibusters of judicial nominees have always been a bad idea. They are also an unconstitutional idea. I used to think otherwise, but I have not heard an argument that overcomes the structure of the constitution. No matter who is president, nominees deserve an up-or-down vote."

If you put both of these together, the NO FILIBUSTER OF JUDGES argument is certain to win the day in an honest court.

[AFPhys]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1404953/posts

Oops: missed link for above.

[AFPhys]

After spending some time hurriedly re-composing all of that above, I posted the wrong copy. Sorry 'bout the dangling and useless sentences that remain and having that link improperly formed.

[FROGTOWN CONSERVATIVE]

Truth and Justice under seige