[Mulderator]

As many of you know, many of Bush's judicial nominations have been blocked by a small minority of partisan Senators purely for political reasons (i.e., the judges are competent, but don't share the same political ideology of the Senators). Read this article before voting in the poll--gives a pretty good description of the issues.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/c...20050425.shtml

A constitutional travesty
Chuck Colson (archive)

Over two hundred years ago, a man who wrote under the name of Publius was hunched over his desk one evening. He was attempting to convince New Yorkers to ratify the proposed United States Constitution. After a moment of thought, he dipped his quill into the ink and wrote the following: The President “is to nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint . . . judges of the Supreme Court.”

Publius, of course, was the pen name used by three of our nation’s founders when they wrote the eighty-five newspaper essays now known as the FEDERALIST PAPERS. Among the authors was Alexander Hamilton, who wrote essay number 76, from which I just quoted. These fading words on a yellowed document reveal that what a handful of U.S. senators are doing today is a constitutional travesty.

Democratic senators have for months been filibustering judges chosen by President Bush to serve on the federal courts. If the full Senate were allowed to vote on these fine judges, they would easily be confirmed. But a hostile minority is using the filibuster tactic to prevent such a vote—purely for ideological reasons.

In so doing, they are behaving as if the Senate is supposed to have equal say with the president in deciding who sits on the court. That is nonsense.

The Constitution could not be clearer. The nomination is made by the president alone. The Senate is to give its advice and consent—not demand ideological purity. Alexander Hamilton explained the intent in his essay number 76. “It is not likely,” he wrote, “that [the Senate’s] sanction would often be refused where there were not special and strong reasons for the refusal.”

The advice and consent clause, Hamilton continued, was intended to provide a check upon a president who would, say, appoint his brother, or engage in favoritism, or reward family connections or personal benefactors—nothing more.

And yet, today a Senate minority is using the filibuster to prevent a vote on highly qualified judges, like Bill Pryor or Miguel Estrada, an able Hispanic lawyer who was nominated and had to be withdrawn, and Janice Brown, an African-American judge from California. And the grounds for opposition is not what the constitutional framers intended; it’s ideological. They just do not like what these judges believe.

This filibuster should offend us for another reason. America’s founders, informed by their Christian understanding of the Fall, provided for a system of checks and balances so that no one branch of government would have power over the other. But today a minority in the Congress is holding hostage judges named to the court. This is a fundamental assault on an independent judiciary and, thus, a violation of the balance of powers.

The Senate is debating this week whether to change its rules so that a simple majority could confirm a judge. That would prevent nominees from being filibustered. This is the only way we will have judges who interpret the law instead of making it up.

Please pick up your phone and call your senators: Jam the Capitol switchboard. The rules must be changed to avoid the hijacking of the Constitution. And then, ask your neighbors to do the same. Let them know that the “unfit characters” Hamilton described two centuries ago are not President Bush’s nominees, but those who are trying to upend the Constitution.

I frankly feel and always have that filabusters are wrong. I don't like them when either party uses them. We taxpayers pay to have our representatives vote--majority rules. Simply because the liberals are now in a minority (actually, a very small minority), they are attempting to stop majority rule because these judge would easily be confirmed in the senate--even a good percentage of non-liberal Democrats would confirm them.

What do you think?

NOTE THIS IS A PUBLIC POLL--PEOPLE WILL KNOW HOW YOU VOTE!

BTW--I posted an article that pretty much sums up my view, but those of you who have a different view, feel free to post an article from the opposite viewpoint. In fact, I would like very much to see an opposing viewpoint on this for good discussion. I would hope this stay non-partisan. Filabuster has been used by Republicans as well as Democrats for the same purpose--it just happens to be Republicans in control now, so Democrats are using it.

[coderitr]

I agree, Mulder, but the foxes are guarding the henhouse. The offending legislators are the same ones responsible for changing the rules. It's the best congress money can buy.

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by coderitr

I agree, Mulder, but the foxes are guarding the henhouse. The offending legislators are the same ones responsible for changing the rules. It's the best congress money can buy.

What difference does that make? The rules will apply to both sides. I am sure there will come a time--even with Republicans in control, that a minority of Republicans will be looking to block a bill or measure by filabuster. If you eliminate the ability to do that, no one can put up a roadblock. I don't care if the Democrats change the rules--this procedure is nothing from a stonewalling technique that does not serve the people.

[angelize56]

Some politicians are such children!

[linskyjack]

I wonder if Nixon's *****, Chuckie Colson was as upset when the Republicans used senate rules to keep many of Clintons nominees from even making it out of committee---Or perhaps he wasn't aware of the case of Judge Pious---Or maybe he believes that these 8 right wing maniacs are normal and represent mainstream American thought. Chuckie, I forget, did you serve jail time for your Watergate crimes.? By the way, ever notice how these former crimminals have become "journalists for the Republicans" You have such wonderful people as Ollie North, Chuckie Colson, E. Gordon Liddy etc----

More Hamilton:

“It will readily be comprehended, that a man who had himself the sole disposition of offices, would be governed much more by his private inclinations and interests, than when he was bound to submit the propriety of his choice to the discussion and determination of a different and independent body, and that body an entire branch of the legislature. The possibility of rejection would be a strong motive to care in proposing.”

Sounds to me like Hamilton would have loved the fillibuster!


Now try reading this--it essentially proves that Republicans have used this technique (remember Abe Fortas) and that it is Constitutional----


The Republicans' new perspective on the filibuster


Published April 21, 2005

In the Senate debate over the filibustering of judicial nominees, it's helpful to know something about congressional procedure, democratic theory and constitutional interpretation. But none of those is as important as the oldest law of politics: Where you stand depends on where you sit.

Republicans are currently perched atop a comfortable majority, with 55 out of 100 senators. Like majorities everywhere, they really like majority rule. Democrats, who once took control of Congress as their natural birthright, have gotten used to being outnumbered in the Senate. So they are determined to use any tool to keep the majority from imposing its will.

President Bush's favorite Supreme Court justice, Antonin Scalia, was lionized by conservatives for his blistering dissent when the court struck down laws against sodomy. In that opinion, Scalia denounced "the invention of a brand-new `constitutional right' by a court that is impatient of democratic change."

But GOP conservatives have decided it's their turn to play inventor. They have convinced themselves that the filibustering of judicial nominees is unconstitutional, and that those nominated to the federal bench have a constitutional right to an up-or-down vote by the full Senate.

The Constitution says the president appoints judges with the "advice and consent" of the Senate. Conservatives interpret this to mean the Senate has the power to accept or reject a nominee, but not to do nothing. The filibuster, however, allows as few as 41 senators to block a vote indefinitely. So Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) has threatened to change the rules to ban its use against judicial nominees.

There are two things wrong with the Republicans' argument: 1) It has zero support in the text of the Constitution, and 2) it's completely at odds with their handling of judges nominated by President Bill Clinton.

The Constitution has one thing to say about the rules of the Senate: that those rules are not to be found in the Constitution. "Each house may determine the rules of its proceedings," it states in Article I, Section 5, at which point it abruptly drops the subject.

Critics of the filibuster, however, say there are limits to Congress' authority over its own deliberations. In their view, rules may not impose a "supermajority" requirement that the Constitution doesn't provide (as it does for treaties and constitutional amendments, which have to pass by a two-thirds vote).

Nice theory, but where did they find it? Not in the Constitution. The "advice and consent" clause doesn't even say that a majority of senators is needed to confirm a nominee. The definition of "consent" is left to the Senate.

Conservatives are fond of citing Sarah Binder of the Brookings Institution, a leading scholar on the filibuster who supports strict new limits on its use. They often quote her declaration (made in an article co-written with Steven S. Smith of Washington University) that this procedure, far from being part of the framers' design, "was not created until 1806"--and "probably by mistake." They prefer not to quote other lines from that article, such as: "No reading of the Constitution can support the idea that filibusters are unconstitutional."

Republicans portray the Democrats' use of this device against judicial nominees, however, as shockingly unprecedented. In fact, the GOP used the filibuster to block President Lyndon Johnson's 1968 nomination of Abe Fortas for chief justice of the United States. More recently, they tried valiantly to filibuster six of Clinton's choices for the federal bench.

But usually they didn't need this tactic to prevent the full Senate from voting. Richard Paez, nominated to an appeals court, had to wait more than four years for the Senate to vote on his confirmation. Particularly during the last year of the Clinton presidency, Republicans were loath to fill vacancies that might be filled by George W. Bush. Often, the GOP-dominated Judiciary Committee simply refused to send such nominations to the floor. That and other delaying tactics were used against some 60 Clinton appointments to the bench.

If the Constitution guarantees nominees a full Senate vote, there are a lot of Clinton nominees whose rights were rudely trampled. It's hard to see why blocking a nomination by means of a filibuster is illegitimate, but blocking one by means of committee inaction is not. It's hard to see why a parliamentary procedure that has existed for two centuries is suddenly unconstitutional.

But sometimes you can't see something because your view is obstructed. Sitting atop all three branches of government, Republicans suddenly have no trouble seeing the need for the majority to get its way, right away.

[Mulderator]

Does it surprise anyone that linsky and Wino think favor obstruction of justice. These Moore-Ons think that politicians should be able to waste taxpayer money by stonewalling the democratic process--you can be sure if Republicans were doing the stonewalling here, the two of them would be screaming bloody murder.

Can you say "hypocrite?"

[linskyjack]

So are you telling us that the Republicans can use the rules of the Senate to stop Clinton's nominees from leaving committee and fillibuster Abe Fortas? And now you want the Democrats to be the nice guys and approve your religious nuts to the court. You are making absolutely no sense. Remember idiot---this Senate has given consent to more of Bush's nominees then any President in the last 25 years! Take that home to the Trinity Church.

[MacFromOK]

Originally Posted by Mulder

I frankly feel and always have that filabusters are wrong. I don't like them when either party uses them. We taxpayers pay to have our representatives vote--majority rules. Simply because the liberals are now in a minority (actually, a very small minority), they are attempting to stop majority rule because these judge would easily be confirmed in the senate--even a good percentage of non-liberal Democrats would confirm them.

What do you think?

Well...I can see your point Mulder and my first inclination is to agree.

However...The system has worked pretty well for a coupla hundred years, and it's not like one party has advantage over the other in this scenario. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm guessing if the situation were reversed you'd be praising the Republican minority for refusing to fold under overwhelming odds.

And we're still a republic, so majority does not necessarily rule. Otherwise the majority could vote to execute the minority.

Bottom line - I'm not really sure about this. Convince me.

Cheers, Mac

[linskyjack]

Mulder has no idea of what oppression of the majority means, and why the filibuster is so important. Considering that this is an Imperial Presidency, it is even more important that the Democrats, and the moderate Republicans hold their ground.

[Wino]

Originally Posted by Mulder

Does it surprise anyone that linsky and Wino think favor obstruction of justice. These Moore-Ons think that politicians should be able to waste taxpayer money by stonewalling the democratic process--you can be sure if Republicans were doing the stonewalling here, the two of them would be screaming bloody murder.

Can you say "hypocrite?"

Politicians are going to waste our money, filibuster or not - so that's pretty flimsy. I'm for leaving it as it is, but if I could change my vote I would - not because I agree, but to give the right all the rope they need to hang themselves. The Dems need to back off, left the Repubs have their way and look forward to 2006 and let the citizens decide whether they want the fanatics to continue to rule.

[angelize56]

From Grassfire!

4/26/2005

Priscilla Owen, William Myers III, Terrence Boyle, Richard Allen
Griffin, William Pryor Jr., Brett Kavanaugh, Janice Rogers
Brown, these are the latest judicial nominees being filibustered by
nine liberal members of the Senate.

These Senators are doing all they can to keep President Bush's
judicial nominees from receiving an up and down vote. Keep in
mind these are all highly qualified, highly respected nominees
who are not being given their just due. In fact, several have been
waiting for four years!

According to our Constitution, and more than 200 years of history,
the Senate is required to either confirm or reject qualified nominees.

Failure to vote tips the delicate balance of power in our nation,
and ultimately threatens to shut down the Senate!

Call Today and Demand an End to the Filibustering

Our Capitol contact has informed us that this
situation has reached a boiling point, and citizen action needs to
be taken quickly. That is why we are urging ALL members of our
online team to contact the nine liberal Senators as well as Senate
Minority Leader Harry Reid over the next two days. We want to
flood their offices with thousands of calls...demanding they end their
obstructionist way and give these nominees and up or down vote!

When calling, remember to be polite and let them know that you
are calling as a member of Grassfire.org.

Here is the "Party of Nine":

Sen. Minority Leader Harry Reid (NV) 202-224-3524

Jeff Bingaman (NM) 202-224-5521

Barbara Boxer (CA) 202-224-3553

Russ Feingold (WI) 202-224-5323

Tom Harkin (IA) 202-224-3254

Ted Kennedy (MA) 202-224-4543

John Kerry (MA) 202-224-2742

Frank Lautenberg (NJ) 202-224-3224

Paul Sarbanes (MD) 202-224-4524

Again, these Senators obstructionist ways to block these
qualified judicial nominees will impact us all unless grassroots
America stands up and says, "No more!"

Please take immediate action with us first by calling each of
these Senators, and then forwarding this important message to
your family and friends. Remember, we want to literally light-up
the switchboard over these next several days!

We greatly appreciate your fast action, and your desire to make a
positive difference in your world!

Grassfire.org Alliance

[Stoner]

NOTE THIS IS A PUBLIC POLL--PEOPLE WILL KNOW HOW YOU VOTE!

When I voted, I could read who made their choices....now I can't.
Has the option to display choices been removed ?

[MacFromOK]

Here's the direct link to view results Stoner:

http://forums.techguy.org/poll.php?d...lts&pollid=869

Cheers, Mac

[linskyjack]

What I find amazing about this debate, is that Mulder and the right have not made ANY attempt to deal with the facts presented. Let us review once more and ask these people to defend their position.

1. Abe Fortas
2. Pious
3. Republicans refusing to allow Clinton nominees to even leave committee
4. Highest percentage of judges seated on the bench in the last 25 years.


By the way, it appears as if the right wing of the Republican party is reading the polls. They are expected to announce that they will give up their attempt to change ethic committee rules in order to protect DeThief. This is great news and shows that the moderates are on the move.

[Stoner]

Thanks Mac.
Where did you get the link?
I don't seem to be able to find it on the page I'm viewing.