Skip to comments.Filibuster Deal Restricts Senators’ Rights to Debate Judicial Nominees
Posted on 01/25/2013 5:56:45 AM PST by LucianOfSamasota
This afternoon, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) announced a potential filibuster deal that, among other problematic provisions, limits post-cloture debate on federal district court nominees (and non-Cabinet-level officials).
Senators currently have up to 30 hours of post-cloture debate on the merits of a district court nominee; the new rule would permit only two hours. This proposal would seriously undermine the rights of sitting senators to call attention to problematic district court nominees and, as a consequence, would enable the President to make more philosophically questionable and professionally unqualified nominations in the future.
Providing advice and consent to judicial nominees are critical, constitutionally-enumerated responsibilities of U.S. senators. Those confirmed to a federal judgeship retain their job during good behavior (virtually for life), and can only be removed by House impeachment and Senate conviction with a 2/3 vote. If the merits of a cabinet secretary are worthy of 30-hours of debate, then any judge appointed for life should be also.
Federal district court judgeships are incredibly important: not only are they on the short list for circuit and Supreme Court nomination (Justice Sotomayor was a district court judge for the Southern District of New York), but district court judges are on the front lines of enforcing federal law, and perhaps more importantly, sit in judgment on whether Congress or the President have exceeded their enumerated powers.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.heritage.org ...
One big, happy family in DC.
who cares judges learned long ago how to evade the questions. by stating something similar to ... I can’t comment on how I might rule on a case that might come before me in the future.
Vichy GOPe signals complete surrender
Deal? IDIOTS!!! Why would McConnell allow himself to even be included in this? Its just another shell game. Reid will change the rules and radical leftists will be nominated to benches all across the country. THEN legislation to ban guns will be signed and those radical judges will find those laws constitutional, setting up a new precedent!
It really is amazing how stupid one political party is in this country. That is why I do not believe it is stupidity but complicity.
Is this not EXACTLY what a conservative should
expect of the liberal-backstabbing party of Romney,
Rove and Boehner?
If you give up fillibuster against nominations then you’ve given up the sharpest arrow in the quiver. Its the one thing the Senate votes on and the House doesn’t. Except treaties and that already requires a supermajority to pass.
Pray for God’s intervention in all of this. The government rests upon His shoulders. He is the ultimate Judge who will seat the judges in America.
Christians take territory against unseen rulers and principalities when we pray. If God is for us, who can be against us?
Pray that God’s will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
would have been nice to consider this as they were blocking every Bush nominee over a five year period.
Welcome to RealVille. You will soon notice how everything makes sense. :)
The nominee still can be fillibustered.
After overcoming the fillibuster debate is limited to 2 hours.
I remember when the conservative position was that the constitution did not allow the senate to establish a supermajority requirement to permit a vote on advice and consent.
As much as that meant bad judges would get through, we understood that the constitution gave the executive the power to make judicial appointments, and the Senate was tasked with providing consent via a simple majority vote.
Of course, this was in a time when senators, no matter what their personal political stance, would make sound judgements, and reject judges only if they were unfit for the office.
Nowadays, neither party is likely to vote against a nominee of their own party, no matter how horrible the pick.
Still, that is not a reason to abandon principles and inject even more partisan politics into the game.
So I still support the elimination of the filibuster for judicial appointment votes. Consent by majority. If the people care for the country, they will stop electing idiots for President.
And frankly, the GOP doesn’t filibuster judges anyway. They’ve blocked quick moves on some judges, but mostly Reid has blocked discussion of judges because it would be embarrassing to his side to have the discussion, and then he blames the republicans.
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.