I pose these questions to any who follow, read, or post on this board who believe that the use of the filibuster is an appropriate means for the minority to use to protect their rights against a majority, in this case, bent on approving a number of judges to higher office. Liberals, moderates, and any persons of striped-tail-ape persuasion are invited to reply. Conservatives are requested to stifle themselves, as Archie was wont to say.
1. Do you believe that 100 hours of open "debate", on the Senate floor, offering each Senator who wishes to avail himself or herself of the opportunity 1 hour of free speech, is inadequate to thoroughly vet a nominee, examine their fitness to serve based on their jurisprudence, their judicial philosophy, and their record, and thus establish the necessary exposure that would precede an up-or-down vote on the nominee?
2. Do you believe that, given the opportunity offered in question 1, such a vote would still be unfair, or undesirable, or insufficiently protective of the minority, because the majority would thus be able to vote their will to promote extreme right-wing candidates?
3. Do you believe that the present Senate, as of May 2005, would vote to approve the nomination of any person who was as totally out-of-the-mainstream, extreme in philosophy, and unsuitable to serve as has been described by some in the current debate?
4. Do you sincerely believe that the current debate is really and truly about the Senate and the tradition of that body as opposed to being about the judicial philosophy of the nominee?
Comments from non-right-wing ideologues welcome. |
