Democrats Blast Nuclear Option as Abuse of Power

Fox News ^ | May 19, 2005 | Liza Porteus

[Paloma_55]

WASHINGTON — Moderate senators from both parties are working behind the scenes on a compromise as a battle plays out on the Senate floor on whether President Bush's judicial nominees should all be given a straight confirmation vote in the chamber.

Although lawmakers involved in the talks say progress is being made, they're unsure a deal will necessarily be made on Wednesday.

....

[Paloma_55]

I received a call from the Republican Issues Campaign which is a PAC that has broad influence within the Beltway.

I told them I would give them $100 when all of the President's nominees had been voted on.

They sent me an envelope and donation card, I filled it out with I.O.U. $100 to be paid when the president's judicial nominees get voted on and mailed it back to them with their pre-paid envelope.

After doing that twice, I received a personal letter stating that they have made commitments on the money I pledged and requesting a check. They included information on how to get direct response from their chairman, Linda Chavez. I will include that on the next I.O.U. I send them.

My theory is that the PACs and lobbyists are the ones we should pressure. Legislators are going to ignore people, but they won't ignore the lobbyists who are seeing their coffers falling short of expectation.

[Brilliant]

If you want to see an abuse of power, look at the liberal judiciary.

[evad]

They sent me an envelope and donation card, I filled it out with I.O.U. $100 to be paid when the president's judicial nominees get voted on and mailed it back to them with their pre-paid envelope.

Excellent!

I know what I'm doing with my next donation card!

[Eric in the Ozarks]

As little Frankie Pantangelie was hear to say to his Don, "Lets hit em now, while we've got the muscle."

[thoughtomator]

So censure us.

[Williams]

Why are they wasting their time on idiotic "compromises" over a stupid rule change? They should vote on the rule change and move on. This and the republican "moderates" are about the sillyest things I have ever seen.

By definition any "compromise" will mean the democrat minority can still block judges from coming up for a vote. If the republicans can't see through this childishness, how can I trust them to deal with a nuclear North Korea, Iran, China, etc?

[Rummyfan]

Democrats Blast Nuclear Option as Abuse of Power

It is the minority Senate Democrats who are committing an abuse of power by refusing to have votes on the President's nominees.

No Compromise!

[weepnomore]

Have already returned 4 donation cards with a "NO VOTES/NO DOLLARS" reply, but I like your I.O.U. idea !

[sawdust]

We (libs and conservatives alike) are all so concerned about how appellate and Supreme Ct. justices will rule concerning legislation--legislation passed by freely elected US and state legislators. Yet, there is NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING in the US constitution giving federal judges the authority to overturn legislation passed by such legislators. The judiciary (under Chief Justice Marshall) essentially seized this power in a constitutional coup in the seminal case Marbury vs. Madison. What we conservatives should be debating is whether the institution of judicial review should even exist in this day and age. Most representative republics don't have it. A law passed by a freely elected parliament is assumed to be constitutional. That is how it is in Britain and most of Europe. American legislators and executives swear an oath to uphold and defend the US constitution. It is thus unthinkable that they would introuduce, let alone pass legislation violating our Constitution. I know this seems quixotic, but if we press our allies in the Federalist society and in Congress, we may, someday, be able to push through a constituional amendment eliminating the odious doctrine of judicial review.

[AFPhys]

Here's an article that contains a side-by-side comparison and the dates that the judicial appt's question was brought before the Constitutional Convention.Breaking the Rules: The Framers intended no more than a Senate majority to approve judges.


Excerpt:

On June 13, 1787, it was originally proposed that judges be “appointed by the national Legislature,” and that was rejected; Madison objected and made the alternative motion that appointments be made by the Senate, and that was at first approved. Madison specifically proposed that a “supermajority” be required for judicial appointments but this was rejected. On July 18, Nathaniel Ghorum made the alternative motion “that the Judges be appointed by the Executive with the advice & consent of the 2d branch,” (following on the practice in Massachusetts at that time). Finally, on Friday, September 7, 1787, the Convention approved the final Appointments Clause, making the president primary and the Senate (alone) secondary, with a role of “advice and consent.”

Obviously, this question is something that the Framers carefully considered. The Constitution and Supreme Court decisions are quite clear that only a majority is necessary for confirmation. Neither the filibuster, nor a supermajority vote, is part of the Advice and Consent role in the U.S. Constitution. Until the past four years, the Senate never did otherwise.

After discussion, the Framers of The Constitution clearly intended majority advise/consent approval of the Senate in this case to be sufficient, and wrote it that way, and ratified the document in this form.

Up until now (two years or so ago), that was always understood, and it was the only provision ever voted on in the history of the country regarding this issue. If they wish to change that, the Senate and House must muster a 2/3 majority to start to AMEND the Constitution.

C. Borden Grey pointed out a few days ago on FNC that the filibuster was NOT available during the Clarence Thomas process.

And here is a paragraph from Bill Kristol's May 9 column:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/551vzoao.asp?pg=2

This is why the filibuster has historically not been used on nominations. This is the constitutional logic underlying 200-plus years of American political practice. This is why as recently as 14 years ago the possibility of filibustering Clarence Thomas, for example, was not entertained even by a hostile Democratic Senate that was able to muster 48 votes against him. The American people seem to grasp this logic. In one recent poll, 82 percent said the president's nominees deserve an up or down vote on the Senate floor.

Also, see THIS article by McCarthy on NRO who admits he was wrong last November when he asserted that filibustering judges did not violate the constitution. CONFESSING ERROR. His argument is complicated enough that it appears to be a legal opinion rather than an easily accessible article, but he has clearly thought about this a great deal now, unlike his earlier writings - his words, not mine.

If you have a mind for legalese and enjoy a challenge, take a look at it.

"...the power of the president to make appointments is explicitly spelled out in the constitution. By blocking it, the Senate is thus effectively denying the executive his indisputable authority." ...

"Filibusters of judicial nominees have always been a bad idea. They are also an unconstitutional idea. I used to think otherwise, but I have not heard an argument that overcomes the structure of the constitution [think: checks and balances]. No matter who is president, nominees deserve an up-or-down vote."

If you put the three of these together, the NO FILIBUSTER OF JUDGES argument is certain to win the day in an honest court. The Republicans are attempting to uphold the Constitution's clear intent on advise&consent.

The NYSlimes and the rest of the Old Media FRAUDcasters are trying to make this inaccessible to you, but you can get it from these articles yourself.

my final words on it would be:

Only one thing needs to be understood: After considering other mechanisms, The Constitution, as ratified in 1787, enshrined that a simple majority vote of the Senate was required for advise and consent of presidential appointments, including judicial, and specifically considered requiring a supermajority.

The Senate's legislative filibuster rule does not apply now, and it never did - hence the 52-48 approval of S.C.Justice Thomas - instead of a filibuster defeat. In addition, the Senate has a Constitutional obligation to duly consider the president's nominees, as McCarthy shows.

If they don't like that, the Senate needs to change the Constitution, not the Senate Rules. Until then, they are constitutionally required to take a vote on these appointments with the majority winning the vote.
`\

Here's an article that contains a side-by-side comparison and the dates that the judicial appt's question was brought before the Constitutional Convention.Breaking the Rules: The Framers intended no more than a Senate majority to approve judges.


Excerpt:

On June 13, 1787, it was originally proposed that judges be “appointed by the national Legislature,” and that was rejected; Madison objected and made the alternative motion that appointments be made by the Senate, and that was at first approved. Madison specifically proposed that a “supermajority” be required for judicial appointments but this was rejected. On July 18, Nathaniel Ghorum made the alternative motion “that the Judges be appointed by the Executive with the advice & consent of the 2d branch,” (following on the practice in Massachusetts at that time). Finally, on Friday, September 7, 1787, the Convention approved the final Appointments Clause, making the president primary and the Senate (alone) secondary, with a role of “advice and consent.”

Obviously, this question is something that the Framers carefully considered. The Constitution and Supreme Court decisions are quite clear that only a majority is necessary for confirmation. Neither the filibuster, nor a supermajority vote, is part of the Advice and Consent role in the U.S. Constitution. Until the past four years, the Senate never did otherwise.

After discussion, the Framers of The Constitution clearly intended majority advise/consent approval of the Senate in this case to be sufficient, and wrote it that way, and ratified the document in this form.

Up until now (two years or so ago), that was always understood, and it was the only provision ever voted on in the history of the country regarding this issue. If they wish to change that, the Senate and House must muster a 2/3 majority to start to AMEND the Constitution.

C. Borden Grey pointed out a few days ago on FNC that the filibuster was NOT available during the Clarence Thomas process.

And here is a paragraph from Bill Kristol's May 9 column:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/551vzoao.asp?pg=2

This is why the filibuster has historically not been used on nominations. This is the constitutional logic underlying 200-plus years of American political practice. This is why as recently as 14 years ago the possibility of filibustering Clarence Thomas, for example, was not entertained even by a hostile Democratic Senate that was able to muster 48 votes against him. The American people seem to grasp this logic. In one recent poll, 82 percent said the president's nominees deserve an up or down vote on the Senate floor.

Also, see THIS article by McCarthy on NRO who admits he was wrong last November when he asserted that filibustering judges did not violate the constitution. CONFESSING ERROR. His argument is complicated enough that it appears to be a legal opinion rather than an easily accessible article, but he has clearly thought about this a great deal now, unlike his earlier writings - his words, not mine.

If you have a mind for legalese and enjoy a challenge, take a look at it.

"...the power of the president to make appointments is explicitly spelled out in the constitution. By blocking it, the Senate is thus effectively denying the executive his indisputable authority." ...

"Filibusters of judicial nominees have always been a bad idea. They are also an unconstitutional idea. I used to think otherwise, but I have not heard an argument that overcomes the structure of the constitution [think: checks and balances]. No matter who is president, nominees deserve an up-or-down vote."

If you put the three of these together, the NO FILIBUSTER OF JUDGES argument is certain to win the day in an honest court. The Republicans are attempting to uphold the Constitution's clear intent on advise&consent.

The NYSlimes and the rest of the Old Media FRAUDcasters are trying to make this inaccessible to you, but you can get it from these articles yourself.

my final words on it would be:

Only one thing needs to be understood: After considering other mechanisms, The Constitution, as ratified in 1787, enshrined that a simple majority vote of the Senate was required for advise and consent of presidential appointments, including judicial, and specifically considered requiring a supermajority.

The Senate's legislative filibuster rule does not apply now, and it never did - hence the 52-48 approval of S.C.Justice Thomas - instead of a filibuster defeat. In addition, the Senate has a Constitutional obligation to duly consider the president's nominees, as McCarthy shows.

If they don't like that, the Senate needs to change the Constitution, not the Senate Rules. Until then, they are constitutionally required to take a vote on these appointments with the majority winning the vote.
`\

[libs_kma]

Great idea! We get asked for money a lot more often than we get to vote on Congressmen and Senators.

I'm fully disgusted with my two Ohio Senators that are rumored to at one time to have been Republicans.

We have Rinovich who may as well be Harry Ried when it comes to John Bolton, and the other supposed Republican, Dewine, is one of the panty waists trying to cut a deal with Demwits on judicial nominees.

I'd like to cut a deal to trade these idiots in on some real Conservatives. I'd trade the both of them for one Zell Miller.

[AFPhys]

Everyone:

Please PHONE Senators, the RNC, and the Republican cloakroom.

Make certain they hear your voice - and your determination that primary challengers to compromisers will be well funded.

[aimhigh]

Once they eliminate the fillibuster, they should work to eliminate the power of the committees. The committee system is what gives the party leaders overdue influence. It would be nice to have my congresspeople represent me rather than their majority leader.

[Soul Seeker]

Interesting strategy.

I have already stated I will donate money for the following:

1) Each Judge confirmed with an up or down vote. When Brown is confirmed- Check. When Pryor is confirmed- Check. When Owens is confirmed- Check. Same for Saad and Myers, btw, for those trying to arrange a deal to vote these Justices down in the RINO camp!

2) End of Filibuster

3) Confirmation of Bolton

4) Lump sum at end of summer if the recent spine proves to be permanent.

It's up to them how much I donate if at all.

[swampfox98]

Democrats Blast Nuclear Option as Abuse of Power

The Democrats have always been good liars and deceivers. However with the era of the Clintons lying became standard policy. Also standard policy is the lying media, who have no scruples now to promote the Democrat agenda without any backlash. They know Hillary is going to be president in a few years, and she will take care of everything for them. They can continue to lie with impunity.

Also something that never changes is the Republicans. They remain fearful and unwilling to play their roll as the majority. It seems the Democrats and the media can roll them every time. If Republicans don't take control now it is all over for them. They will never be in a position of leadership again.

[b4its2late]

We may not see it happen if the 6 RINOs and 6 Wannabe dems submarine the whole thing........

[boris]

They oughta know, having abused power and run roughshod over the minority (mostly Republicans) for 40 years...

--Boris

[AmericanChef]

What Nuclear Option? They haven't done anything yet (and probably never will).

[AFPhys]

aHH.. it has been more than 40 years. There were years in the mid-1900's that the Dems had as many as 70 senators!

It would be interesting to see a chart of # Senators during the past 100 years by party.

[ducks1944]

I HAVE SENT BACK 2 LETTERS FOR MONEY WITH NO MORE VOTE, NO MORE MONEY TILL REPUBLICAN STAND FOR JUDGES AND THEY GET UP OR DOWN VOTE. ALSO BOLTON AND REPUBLICAN STAND STAND UP FOR TOM DELAY.
NO MORE VOTES, NO MORE MONEY ! !