Posted on 01/04/2005 9:29:29 AM PST by pabianice
Actually, most CJ were never J. Warren Burger & Earl Warren are two examples.
Charles Colson would do nicely, too.
This issue isn't up to the people. It's up to each House. No way will the Senate censure anyone for absence due to campaigning for another office. After all, every man Jack of them (and every woman Jill) thinks they could and should be President, Governor, or Supreme Court Justice.
I understand your aggravation, Gunny. Senators can be accused of a lot of things, but most of them do work pretty hard. This is not necessarily an advantage for the rest of us. Frankly, we'd be better off if more of them were slackers and not working overtime to figure out way to tax us, regulate us and generally makes things harder rather than easier.
CJ Taft, don't forget.
That sounds attractive, ostensibly. But a cautionary note: had the Republicans gone "nuclear" when they controlled the Senate in the early and mid-80's, we would have HillaryCare today. It was only Phil Gramm whipping the Democrat majority--with the filibuster option--that kept it from being rammed down our throats.
My rule of thumb is that anything (legal, of course) that prevents any deliberative government body from functioning is not only not bad, but a positive good. Another rule of thumb: anything we propose for a short-term solution is going to be used against us in the long-term, so we had better be able to stomach it.
I think the filibuster is a good idea for legislation, but not for confirming appointments. Also, I don't think stopping votes for or against confirmation of Presidential appointments is a "positive good." Leaving Cabinet Secretaries, Ambassadors, Judges, etc. vacant for long periods of time is not a good idea.
Living in Ohio, I'm trying to forget the name "Taft". Our current Governor is mediocre on his best days.
Shut the whole mess down.
Taft?
Well, there are two points you make. The second, with respect to vacancies, is a debate for another time. Your first, I agree with. I'm not sure that the "advise and consent" clause contemplated the shennanigans found now or, even, the process that is set up.
My guess is that any significant delay tactic used by the Dems...will cost them at least 2 million votes in the next election. Alot of folks are simply tired of bogus "wait them out" game...and its public knowledge now...the blogs and Fox can sit there and draw public attention without the aid of NBC or CNN.
I wish I knew. I think it is nearly impossible. The ones you list care not about the principles upon which this great Republic was founded, but care more about "getting" along. They have been in Washington so long that they fully understand there will be no consequence in opposing Bush (other than verbal ramblings). That's politics.
The only thing worse than not attempting to restore the confirmation of judges to its judicial parameters, is to attempt it and FAIL.
Billybob
Don't confuse the apples and the oranges.
Congressman Billybob
Van Republicans vote in their absence if they refuse to come in?
Before he could do that, Frist will have to find a backbone somewhere.
You think Frist is to blame for there having been insufficient Senators to uphold the nucular [sic] option? There weren't 50 votes in the last Congress! We had 51 Republicans, plus Zell; however, there were some that would not have gone along with the vote (the Maine gals and Chafee, at least).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.