Posted on 11/13/2003 5:38:16 PM PST by Congressman Billybob
I have a question for you or anyone who knows. I often hear the Democrats claim that they have graciously confirmed either 95% or 98% of Bush's judicial nominees. What's up with that? They must be either lying or comparing apples and oranges.
The real action is for the Circuit Court nominees. These are the appellate judges just below the Supreme Court. These judges set most of the judicial policy in the US by reviewing the decisions made by the trial courts. Also, the next nominees for Justices on the Supreme Court will be drawn (probably) from the ranks of the Circuit Court judges. In this critical category, the Senate has confirmed 29 but is now holding up 6, and the number held up here will probably climb to 12 shortly.
The second error in the 98% is the impression that this is a "good" number. If 98% of all the planes flying in the US arrived safely where intended, there would be 72 plane crashes every day, for instance.
But the most basic error in the number is that it refers to violations of the Constitution. The Constitution, Article II, Section 2, requires only a simple majority of 51 votes, not 60 votes, to confirm judges. Senators, like all other elected and appointed officials in the US, take an oath to obey and preserve the US Constitution. That oath is 100%, and contains no clause that says, "unless I think it is really, REALLY important to violate the Constitution."
There are about a million churches in the US. A 98% obedience to the Constitution would mean that 20,000 churches could be closed without offense. There are 2,000 daily newspapers, meaning 40 could be closed without offense. There are 200 million voters in the US, meaning 4 million could be denied the right to vote without offence. You get the picture.
In short, the Democrats are following a frequent tactic of theirs. Figure out the simplest possible lie to cover for the truth of their hijacking the judiciary, with two requirements. The lie must be easily understood, and the lie must have a good chance of being accepted by a substantial number of the American people. The targets for the lie are the more ignorant Americans, the ones who tend to be Democrats anyway.
Does that answer your questions?
John / Billybob
Yes, very well. Thanks so much for your insight. All I've heard about is the 6 or so circuit court nominees who have been blackballed and 'neanderthaled' by the Democrats, then they toss out this 98% confirmed number.
If you follow the implied line of logic the Democrats would like you to, that suggests around 294 Bush circuit court nominees have breezed right through without fanfare.
When the use of the House or Senate Rule violates the Constitution, the Court can tell the House or Senate what to do. See Powell v. McCormick, where the Court "reversed" the failure of the House to seat its corrupt but overwhelmingly reelected Congressman from Harlem.
John / Billybob
Sure, I can understand that. If rules passed by the Senate contradict another part of the Constitution. I just don't see how requiring a super-majority in a rules commitee violates the constitution. If the super-majority was required for the general vote, that would be different. I suppose the courts could theoretically extend the principle to a committee. It wouldn't have to stop there even.
The Supreme Court (in a treaty matter, not a filibuster matter) has ruled that the two clauses of Art. II, Sect. 2, are distinct and the first means 2/3rds and the second means a simple majority.
Most importantly, the Senate itself has consistently, since it was first organized in 1789, followed the practice that a floor vote on ANY nominee including judicial ALWAYS requires a simple majority. I put myself through about 24 hour of listening to the Senate "debate." Not once did ANY Democrat stand up on his or her hind legs and say that more than a majority vote was required to confirm these judges. And none said that because they know d*mned well it would be a lie.
The question is not what Art. II, Sect. 2 means. It is how to enforce that known meaning. Can it be done by the Senate itself by either of two routes? Would the Court be willing to enforce it by telling the Senate what to do?
Congressman Billybob
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.
