Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: AFPhys
Because his last position agrees with yours, he "saw the light." The very existence of this article proves that a solid argument exists that the filibuster of nominees is constitutional. Even McCarthy can argue both sides of it.

Even Frist can take both sides of it.

And DiFi has taken both sides of it.

Hmmmm... Strange how so many now are certain that it is violative of the Constitution.

1,018 posted on 05/19/2005 10:53:04 AM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 990 | View Replies ]


To: lugsoul

Thank you for your remarks. This is the bottom line that eliminates any "solid argument" for a supermajority:

The 1987 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION specifically debated this. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1404953/posts
>>> 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.

The CONSTITUTION AS RATIFIED has ONLY majority requirement for judicial appointments.

Thanks for the respectful debate. I have to run now.


1,068 posted on 05/19/2005 11:01:18 AM PDT by AFPhys ((.Praying for President Bush, our troops, their families, and all my American neighbors..))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1018 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson