Compromise is Unconstitutional

[EDINVA]

BORK: What is happening is that the Democrats are going to try to prevent judges who follow the real meaning of the Constitution from getting on the bench. That's what the filibuster is about. There hasn't been any filibusters like this ever. It's always been a majority vote in the Senate.

from the Fox website, transcript of Bork on Hannity and Colmes.

[MHT]

The Dems are going to push the envelope more and more, beginning next week. What will happen next if they try to filibuster a vote on Bolton? What will happen if Frist pushes for a vote on the other 7, as he already promised Rush today he was going to?

This cabal between the Seven Dwarf-brains is going to fall apart and make the Republican saps look like the fools they are.

[tarheelswamprat]

The Senate IS required to perform its Advice and Consent function. It is not optional

We should have considered this while we were "blue slipping" all those Clinton appointees. Then again, foresight and turnabout has never been the strong suit of pols and partisans.

Good point. It's even simpler than that. If we simply followed the Cocstitution and never resorted to subterfuges like blue-slipping and philibusters these things wouln't be an issue.

[ambrose]

The Senate IS required to perform its Advice and Consent function. It is not optional.

Funny... but I do not recall any Freepers expressing this point of view when Jesse Helms refused to even hold a hearing on William Weld's nomination to be Amb to Mexico.

[tarheelswamprat]

Funny... but I do not recall any Freepers expressing this point of view when Jesse Helms refused to even hold a hearing on William Weld's nomination to be Amb to Mexico.

I was not among that company. See post 43.

[jwalsh07]

And you did a dang good job of it.