Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wayners who wrote (640255)	10/7/2004 9:04:49 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

"They will be liberals if Kerry is elected." No way. (Not unless Dems gain a hell of a lot in the Senate... and maybe not even then. The odds are extremely small.) "The Senate provides consent of nominees." Yep, 'advise and consent'... vote up or down. "The Senate does not have a supermajority of Republicans" True. Republicans have 51 currently (not 60). "The Constitution clearly only requires a majority vote." Yes... but the Senate sets it's own rules for how it operates as an organization (same as the House sets it's own rules), and they both have since our earliest history. Nothing new there.... Senators can fillibuster (one of the 'grand old traditions of the Senate, it was designed purposely to be a more deliberative body then the House... slower to move in action), just as they always have. As you noted, it's takes a 'super-majority' to evoke cloture and shut off debate. (Either that, or a Senator needing a bathroom break, LOL). That makes my point. Without a 'super-majority' it's hard for either Party to ram things through the Senate. That means that nominees truly disagreeable to the opposition Party may not even get a floor vote! So, there is next to no possibility that a President Kerry would be able to push through extremely 'Liberal' nominees... (especially not with the Senate in Republican hands as it is now.) "Have you been complete asleep and missed the judicial nominee circus over the past year?" Clearly not... since I know there wasn't much of a 'circus'. Bush has had a higher number of his court nominees confirmed then the preceeding President did. He has also had a higher percentage of his nominees confirmed (up in the '90s) to the federal bench then Clinton achieved. Lastly, the vacancy level on the federal bench is lower now --- near the end of Bush's first four years --- then it was either at the end of Clinton's first four, or at the end of his last term.