Replies

"do not think filibusters of appointments are that serious a matter, since the Constitution provides the obvious remedy of recess appointments"

The original intent of the Framers was not the use of recess
appointments as a political tool. The Congress only met for one session a year and it took wks to get there. Granting a recess appointment is not without political peril!

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17266

Here are two posts from a very knowledgeable ArneFufkin
refuting very aptly, the downside of recess appt. in this situation.

Yes I am woody, I'm saying the Constitutional mandate you and I have to a speedy trial by jury, and a review by a higher court is of primary import. We need Judges to fill Federal benches to attack unacceptable backlogs and their Unconstitutional usurpation of our legal system.
The Senate RATS have no intent to fulfill their obligation to fair and expedient advice and consent role to Executive appointments.

Bush is thus obligated .... TO US ... to fill open Court Judgeships in any way that is legal, ethical and in the best interest of our ONLY avenue to guard against the abuses of State and neighbor. Force and fraud.

Screw the RATS, they're the enemy. Not loyal opposition. Enemy.

LIVE THREAD: Estrada Filibuster DAY 2

Posted by ArneFufkin to woodyinscc
On News/Activism 02/13/2003 10:46 PM PST #1,470 of 1,504

And, if any Bush executive decree is deemed so abusive, so offensive and so intolerable to the American citizenry ... he's gotta win a vote of that citizenry in November 2004. Every judge he appoints will be subject to new nomination, review, advice and consent in 2005.
There's a very clear and direct referendum that will judge whether a recess appointment option is acceptable or unacceptable to our neighbors and countrymates. I like our odds ... EVERYONE understands the bullshit of red tape and delayed and denied justice.

Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1,464 | View Replies