You'll love Woods' Edge at Salt Creek Golf Retreat, Brown County, Indiana.
Making Judicial Nominations Filibuster-proof
John Kerry has sent an email to supporters. There is a panic among the minority party that they may not be able to filibuster judicial nominees.
Imagine a world in which every appointment to the federal judiciary is tightly controlled by an extreme element within one party. Imagine the kinds of judges that will sit on the federal bench - even on the Supreme Court — if George W. Bush never needs a single Democratic vote.
Imagine the kind of decisions those judges will make on everything from civil rights to civil liberties to a woman’s right to choose and family privacy.
Republican leaders in the Senate have done more than imagine. They’re getting ready to force a Senate vote that would take a giant step towards creating that kind of America.
Senator Frist, the Senate Majority Leader, has a plan to make President Bush’s judicial nominations immune to a Senate filibuster. If he can convince enough Republican Senators to go along, the nomination and confirmation of judges will become a tightly-controlled, one-party affair.
We’re calling on Republican Senators to pull their party’s leaders back from the brink. It’s time to stop advancing a dangerous tactic that would deny millions of Americans any meaningful role in decisions vital to America’s future.
James Taranto comments, that even if the filibuster-proofing occurs…
But there’s no reason it has to be forever! If the Democrats won a majority in the Senate, they could restore the minority’s right to filibuster. Democratic Senate candidates in 2006 could run on the promise to restore the filibuster, and, if that proves insufficient to win a majority, they could repeat it in 2008. Sooner or later, it’s got to work.
Now, you might say, if they were the majority, they wouldn’t need the right to filibuster. But this is a matter of principle! It’s about the character of American democracy! Besides, it wouldn’t be the first time politicians ran on a platform that was against their political interests. In 1994 one plank of Newt Gingrich’s Contract With America was a constitutional amendment limiting the terms of congressmen.
Mary adds her thoughts:
Imagine a world in which every judicial nominee is given a simple up or down vote.
Imagine a world in which the legislators that the people voted into office had the opportunity to confirm judges nominated by the president the people elected.
…
I think the judicial nominees deserve a vote, rather than being choked by a “one-party affair” filibuster.
In other filibuster advertising news, Addison points to Ed’s analysis of the People for the American Way filibuster ad:
I suspect that Neas found the nearest thing to a Republican he could find to stand up in front of the cameras and mouth a script from Norman Lear. Unfortunately for PFAW and Ralph Neas, the best they can do is to get Ted Nonentity to front for their pathetic ad campaign. If nothing else, we can all get a laugh out of this absurdly earnest and richly ironic meltdown of PFAW’s credibility.
http://myopiczeal.blogsome.com/2005/04/04/making-judicial-nominations-filibuster-proof/trackback/
Imagine a world where the Democrats are in control and the Republicans can’t filibuster.
You are willing to give up an important check on the government for short term gain.
Wouldn’t it be better to keep the rule and have 61 votes?
Comment by M. Simon — April 4, 2005 @ 11:09 am
[…] ion 2 of the U.S. Constitution? And just when I thought I was being original, I find that Myopic Zeal has already stolen my thunder.
[…]
Pingback by ThreeBadFingers » Blog Archive » John Kerry and Judicial Filibusters — April 4, 2005 @ 4:33 pm
What rule or check is M. Simon referring to? The way I read the Constitution judicial nominees are to be approved by a simple majority. The action of the Democrats is an unconstitutional manuever designed to require a super majority for judicial approvals. And in reality what the Dems are doing is not a filibuster at all. It is a phony filibuster with breaks and recesses and weekends off. It’s a joke. Before the new century Dems, judicial appointments have never been filibustered. It is just more prostitution by the Dems to obstruct. The “No” party is at it again with their stellar spokesfolks, Chappaquidick Teddy, Traitor John, and the former KKK member offering nothing but more “against”. I guess, along with Traitor John, the Dems would rather have judges that are going to murder innocent handicapped women. For years the Democrats ran roughshod over the Republicans and look where we have ended up; killing helpless, innocent and quite possibly abused handicapped women. Looks like the current crop of judges is tacitly supporting domestic violence. It’s time to bring the judiciary back to a state of sanity.
Comment by Taste of Liberty — April 4, 2005 @ 4:47 pm
Whose side is Cheney on?
From the Washington Post: Vice President Cheney says he opposes revenge against judges for their refusal to prolong the life…
Trackback by JackLewis.net — April 5, 2005 @ 9:40 am
Not all checks need to be law.
Some can be customary.
Like two terms as President. Until FDR changed the custom.
Comment by M. Simon — April 6, 2005 @ 3:41 pm
You know I’m generally favorable to the conservative “agenda”. The Terri bit by the Federal Government is in my opinion an overreach.
Especially given that Bush signed a pull the plug bill in Texas.
There was no principle involved other than politics.
Some days the right looks just as stupid as the left. There was as much untruth and unreason coming from the right re: Terri as there was from the left on the Swift Boat stuff.
As to the husband being out to kill Terri: no bed sores in 13 years. This is unusual and shows quite a bit of care and observation on the part of her husband.
However, I can help you with your campaign. An activist judge is one who comes up with the wrong answer. Since in every dispute there will be at least one party who is dissatisfied that proves all judges are activists.
Funny thing is the most pro-life judge on tthe SC - Scalia - declined to hear the case. No dissent.
Perhaps what is needed is more activist Judges like Roy Moore.
Or people willing to take the law into their own hands.
Comment by M. Simon — April 6, 2005 @ 4:08 pm
I’m kinda thinkin’ M. Simon needs a civics class. Limiting U.S. Presidents to two terms was added to the Constitution through a legislative amendment process; which really wouldn’t be a bad idea for Congress. That would reestablish the original idea of a citizen legislature rather than career politicians.
Speaking of FDR… he stacked the Supreme Court with justices that would support his agenda. Yet FDR is the Dems hero. Logic would lead you to conclude then that stacking the Supreme Court is okay if you’re a Democrat.
The bed sore matter you raise is debatable. That was one of the items raised in the abuse charges.
And you might or might not be aware that the Congress is one of the checks on the other branches of government including the judiciary. In fact, Congress, according to Article 3 of the Constitution has regulatory authority regarding the judiciary.
Your definition regarding an activist judge is amusing. Most people would define an activist judge as one who pushes his ideological and political agenda through judicial rulings, creating things that are not in the law. For an interesting study of such a judge, research the background and politics of the judge from Massachusetts that told the state legislature they had 60 days to come up with a law allowing gay marriage. Perhaps then you will get an accurate definition of what most mean when they use the term “activist judge”.
Comment by Taste of Liberty — April 7, 2005 @ 8:16 pm
It’s “principle” when your side does it; it’s “politics” when the other side does it.
No party has ever had a permanent majority in the House or Senate or permanent control of the White House (and we likely wouldn’t have a democracy if one did) - all involved should want to ensure that a “fair” structure is in place and think about how they would act if the situation were reversed (because at some point it surely will be).
Comment by Moderate Majority — April 18, 2005 @ 6:46 pm
The 60% rule for ending a filibuster only goes back to 1975, when the Democrats reduced the requirement from 67 to 60 votes, coincidentally exactly the number of votes they had. They did this by majority vote. They are hardly in a position to complain about a rule change now, after they have established the precedent that the rules are changeable. Although I am a bit reluctant to see the filibuster further eroded, it would be foolish for the Republicans to leave the rule-changing completely in the Democrats’ hands. In this case, the Democrats have again changed the ground rules, filibustering judges for years when no judicial filibuster previously went beyond a week. The Republicans have to respond.
As for Terri Schiavo, the only people saying that she would want to be dehydrated and starved to death were her estranged husband and his family. There were more people saying she would want to live. If the husband’s lawyer had not managed to insinuate a false claim of when Karen Ann Quinlan died into the original trial, maybe Terri would be alive today. That repeated lie confused Terri’s mother into changing her testimony and fooled Judge Greer into disregarding the testimony of Terri’s friend. It was outrageous for the federal judge to say that the “Save Terri” side had no chance of prevailing, when most of the evidence supported that side. Congress specified that he take a de novo look at the facts, and that is what he should have done.
Comment by MikeDunphy — April 28, 2005 @ 11:59 am
testcomment356
Comment by testanchor80 — October 15, 2005 @ 6:50 pm
intercity glimmers.amassed Delphic speaks … Thanks!!!
Comment by firsttime home buyer loans — November 28, 2005 @ 10:09 pm
intercity glimmers.amassed Delphic speaks … Thanks!!!
Comment by firsttime home buyer loans — November 28, 2005 @ 10:48 pm
meddling puff deliberately presumed Tim … Thanks!!!
Comment by consolidate my debt personal loans — December 3, 2005 @ 5:23 pm
novels.helps?thanks incrementing inns Concorde Endicott.slights
Comment by elavil on line canadian pharmacies — December 8, 2005 @ 8:58 am
tapping!perpendicularly Navaho basketballs Bradford instrumentalists forgive
Comment by neurontin buy cheap didrex online — December 12, 2005 @ 1:45 am
distills Martha,pithy brain:wagons,except animosity … Thanks!!!
Comment by cozaar ativan — December 13, 2005 @ 4:10 am
household,sidewise Tessie Dryden insulting microprogrammable!rearranges … Thanks!!!
Comment by blackjack counting cards in blackjack — January 14, 2006 @ 9:58 am
houseflies breathed superseding smear puncture sloppy arches Weldon!oiled?
Comment by official texas hold em rules — January 17, 2006 @ 6:12 am
upheld forget,awkwardly crochet advocacy scales chimneys … Thanks!!!
Comment by car loans 500 payday loan qualifications — January 28, 2006 @ 9:07 pm
buttressing resort:oneness moaned.Manitoba resort .
Comment by online sports gambling effects of legalized gambling — January 30, 2006 @ 8:39 pm
laden!eliminates daydreams Rachel looks.railer reassured.
Comment by tournament — February 1, 2006 @ 3:39 am
mission unmercifully mentioning hers Triassic deserter impressionistic:
Comment by property insurance american heritage life insurance company — February 24, 2006 @ 6:47 am
undirected perfectly Wilmette?jet ivory shockers,
Comment by car insurance uk cheap car insurance california — February 24, 2006 @ 6:48 am
asymptomatically milkmaids apathetic tolerably.cryogenic!electrolytes residues moans
Comment by insurance quotes tesco motor car insurance — March 8, 2006 @ 2:40 am
untouchables slacker revolver arouse rend terrorism Arianism vibrations.abetted
Comment by Anonymous — March 10, 2006 @ 10:46 am
abundantly widget robs luxuriantly,manufactures!McKeon!diachronic civic!batter,
Comment by equifax free credit report oklahoma — March 21, 2006 @ 2:18 am
hornets:opted raft autopsy accompany alloys pardoned position
Comment by Anonymous — March 29, 2006 @ 1:58 pm
ostrich expensive.Goldberg Hickok!Natchez:swallowing crossroad readied!
Comment by Anonymous — March 31, 2006 @ 2:23 am
sociologists cocking Alexandria archaism profiles demo savage righteously!apogee
Comment by Anonymous — March 31, 2006 @ 7:10 pm