RE: Fortas' confirmation - Pay particular attention to Myth No. 2.
I hope you don't mind if I give them equal attention.
Myth No. 1: Filibuster of judges is a sacred tradition.
I would agree. There's nothing sacred about the filibuster rule. It's a rule that was established by the Senate. If the Senate wants to change the rule, they can. I don't care one way or another whether the Senate has or doesn't have a filibuster rule. If it exists as a rule a member of the Senate can use it whether I like it or not.
Myth No. 2: Mr. Bush's nominees are being treated no differently than other presidents' nominees.
Since the composition of the Senate changes over time and no historical event is ever exactly repeated, I would say that every nominee is handled differently. Every event has it's own uniqueness.
Fact: The filibuster is nowhere in the Constitution. It is not among the "checks and balances" our Founding Fathers created.
Irrelevant. Whether a word appears, or doesn't appear in the Constitution [or the Federalist papers] has no particular Constitutional implication. The word "privacy" doesn't appear in the Constitution. Neither the Constitution or the Federalist papers make any mention of Senate rules. That doesn't make all Senate rules un-Constitutional.
Liberals also argue that Abe FORTAS was not confirmed as Chief Justice in 1968. But Mr. FORTAS was opposed by a Senate majority (both Republicans and Democrats), and President Johnson withdrew the nomination. Today, a Senate majority supports the nominees, and the president is not withdrawing them.
That makes no sense whatsoever. If Fortas was opposed by the majority, there would be no point in filibustering the nomination. Why would anyone stand there for hours on end, blithering away, not being able to sit or take a piss, when the Senate was going to deny the nomination? You folks come up with the most absurd arguments.
Myth No. 3: The Senate has a "co-equal" role with the president in judicial nominations.
That's a silly statement to begin with. The Constitution sets out the role of the Executive and the Senate with respect to Executive nominations. The Executve has one responsbility, the Senate another. Whether it's "co-equal" or not is rather arbitrary and not worth mentioning, let alone discussing.
Fact: The Constitution expressly gives the president — and only the president — the power to nominate federal judges. All the Senate can do is say "yes" or "no" to the president's choices.
We know that's false. There's lots of things the Senate can do besides say yes or no. They can debate a nominee indefinitely. They can keep the nominee stuck in committee for eternity or at least until the nominee gets tired of waiting and withdraws his/her own name. Many things the Senate can do under Senate rules, but the Senate sets it's own rules. Not much I can do about that.
Fact: Historically, the filibuster has given senators in the minority a chance to speak on the Senate floor before the majority rushes to pass a bill. But the current filibuster is not about the right to speak out.
That's false. The filibuster rule gives a single senator the right to obstruct. Whether it's in the minority or majority party is not germane. It's a rule that filters down to a single Senator and is majority/minority party independent. Personnally, I don't view the filibuster rule as a free speech rule, it's an obstructionist rule. I'd speculate that wouldn't have sounded very good when they set up the rule, so some members may waved their hands about and talked about free speech. Some people may have been naive enough to believe that.
Myth No. 5: The filibuster protects "the right of the minority" to veto nominees.
That's a myth in a couple of ways. The filibuster gives some additional power to a single senator. I don't believe that there is any such thing as "the right of the minority". Originally, when the Senate established the filibuster rule, there was no "cloture rule". Today, the Senate can vote for cloture and end the filibuster [or not] as they did in 1968.
Fact: The Constitution requires two-thirds vote for certain things. Appointing judges is not one of them. So the basic principle of democracy applies: The majority decides. The filibuster of judicial nominees turns majority rule on its head, because 41of 100 senators can keep a judge off the bench without ever even voting.
"Turns majority rule on its head" is nice theatrical hyperbole. Actually, there is a set of Senate rules that Frist could use to end the filibuster with a majority vote. Referred to as the "nuclear option" [Again, nice theatrical hyperbole] he's chosen not to use them.
jttmab
A liberal minority needs federal judges to advance their agenda .....
Blithering idiocy. That is the type of idiocy, that encourages me to not bother reading editorials and op-ed pieces. I rarely look at editorials and op-ed pieces anyway.
jttmab |
