Posted on 04/19/2005 12:54:05 PM PDT by TexasRainmaker
On the judicial nomination issue and the Democrats' filibuster thereof, one thing is clear... Democrats just don't understand our government. The Constitution specifically addresses the issue of judicial nominations in Article 2, Section 2:
...and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States...
So what is "advice and consent"?
ad·vice: recommendation regarding a decision or course of conduct.
con·sent: to give assent or approval.
So it's up to the Senate to give recommendations regarding the President's decision or course of conduct and then to give assent or approval. How does the Senate give its collective recommendations, decisions, assent or approval? By voting.
Throughout history, that vote has been a simple majority: 51%. If 51 Senators speak on the issue, it's considered that "the Senate" has spoken. There are specific instances referenced in the Consitution when more than a simple vote is required, but judicial confirmation isn't one of them.
So what are the Democrats saying by filibustering the judicial nominations? They're saying the Constitution isn't good enough. They're saying that "the Senate" hasn't spoken unless at least 60 Senators say so. Effectively, they're telling America's 295 million citizens who have ELECTED each and every Senator that comprises the current Senate that a handful of Senators represented by a small segment of the overall population can re-write the centuries-old rules just because they say so.
This is the same party that constantly roles out the "disenfranchisement" language. Well, here's your disenfranchisement. A majority of Americans voted in such a way that we happen to have Republican majorities in each house of Congress. Now a small handful of extremists on the Left are telling the majority that they don't have the power to act on behalf of their constituents, but rather the small segment of the population represented by the extreme liberals get to make up the rules as they go because "it's not fair" that they're not the majority party.
This is the same, tired rhetoric from the Left. They want a utopian society where nobody wins and nobody loses... of course, they only want this when they're not in power. When liberals are in power, watch out, it's majority rule, the rest be damned!
But now a handful of Democrats, tired of the extreme wing of their party acting like jackasses, is seeking to end the nonsense (hat tip: Mark).
Democrat Senator Ben Nelson, ... who is working on a bipartisan compromise to end the filibuster of judicial nominees, said he believes that his party’s practice of blocking confirmation votes on controversial nominees has put him and fellow Democratic centrists in politically difficult positions. Nelson ... suggested that a few Democrats in so-called red states might be relieved should the prospect of filibustering the president’s nominees be eliminated. ...
Nelson has suggested to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and his own party’s leadership a proposal that would automatically discharge judicial nominees from the Judiciary Committee after a certain amount of time if the panel failed to vote on them. Under Nelson’s proposal, after another set period any senator could then call nominees discharged from committee to the floor for a confirmation vote. The proposal would be implemented as a permanent change to Senate rules.
Now there's democracy in action. Give the minority the ability to offer its advice and consent (or disapproval) and then move to vote. If "the Senate" think the nominee is sufficient, it will vote to confirm. If "the Senate" doesn't think the nominee has what it takes, it will vote negatively.
Democrats love to paint the picture that when they don't have all the power that somehow their minority status was obtained by something other than the legitimate processes of a Democratic Republic.
Today, the Republicans control certain areas of the government BECAUSE AMERICAN CITIZENS VOTED THAT WAY.
Just because you don't get your way everytime doesn't mean your voice (and that of your constituents) isn't being heard. Trust me, we hear you loud and clear... and that's probably the reason you're not in power.
UPDATE: You will undoubtedly hear the Democrat talking points surrounding a filibuster of Richard Paez in 1999, like the one posted in the comments section on my blog. The Left is pouncing on it like Michael Moore on a twinkie. But what these liberals are failing to recognize is that Richard Paez's nomination was being held up by a DEMOCRAT filibuster. Ted Stewart was a former aide to Orrin Hatch and was nominated by President Clinton on July 27, 1999. Richard Paez and Marsha Berzon were both also nominated, but because of the filibuster against Stewart, their confirmations were delayed. For what it's worth, Paez was ultimately confirmed. And now Democrats want to project their own prior bad behavior onto Republicans because it fits their current line of bullshit.
"So what are the Democrats saying by filibustering the judicial nominations?"
They are abdicating their duty to advise & consent. By all rights, POTUS should be able to then move without them.
No surprises. The limped spined republicans will do little or nothing. They have been in charge of the White House, Senate and House of Reps for nearly 5 years, yet continue to run with their collective tails between their legs in fear of the socialist soviet democrats. We got what we voted for. I am ready for a REAL third party.
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.