Well it looks like "centrist" members of both parties have come to an agreement and it looks like the majority party will not change the rules and remove the filibuster from the arsenal that Senate democrats currently use to help undermine the constitution and thwart the will of the people. The so-called nuclear option has been averted.
This in my opinion is still nothing more than a victory for the minority party. How can the democrats who control neither house nor the presidency. The use of the filibuster has amounted to the circumventing of the constitution by the minority party.
The Constitution of the United States of America tells us that the Senate is supposed to give "advice and consent" to Presidential appointees such as cabinet positions, ambassadors and Judges. Understand from this verbiage in the constitution and other documents that advice and consent does not mean that the minority party decides who is confirmed and who is not.
Libs always say that Republicans have done the same thing to Dem Presidents and that more than 95% of Judicial nominees have been confirmed by the Senate. This is erroneous. The democrats use of the filibuster is unprecedented. When you consider only appellate Judges President Bush has only had 67% of his nominees confirmed. President Clinton by contrast had more than 75%. But what this does not tell you is that not once did the Senate not give Clinton appointees an up-or-down vote on the floor.
Then consider the appointment of Ruth Bader-Guinsberg to the Supreme Court. If there is not a person that deserved to be rejected it was her. She, apart from being a nut, did not in my opinion possess the intellectual capacity to sit on the highest court in the land. She was confirmed with heavy bi-partisan support.
Next consider the confirmation of Justice Clarence Thomas. This man was subjected to a smear campaign of unprecedented proportions. He was accused of things that if were true, should have eliminated him from consideration, yet he was still confirmed. Why? Well first because everyone who was honest with themselves knew that Thomas was telling the truth and that Anita Hill was lying. Much of this can be read at the following link.
While Democrats at the time were very much opposed to Thomas' nomination, no one even considered a filibuster. Why? Because those Senators at least respected the constitution. This group of liberals would rather use the constitution of the United States as toilet paper rather than fulfill their constitutional duty to give "advice and consent" to the president on judicial nominees.
Make no mistakes. This fight is not really over appellate court nominees, but rather it is about future Supreme Court vacancies that will most certainly occur in the next couple of years. The last thing Democrats want is Supreme Court Justices that follow the constitution rather than a so-called evolving set of standards that Justice Kennedy recently referred to in one of the Supreme Court's recent ridiculous decisions. To put it simply. Conservatives want Justices like Scalia, and Thomas; Liberals want Justices such as Kennedy and Bader-Ginsberg. Here's to hoping that Constitutionalists are nominated and confirmed and activist liberal judges are dealt a major blow to their incrimental agendas.
From the Point of View of a Red State American
Monday, May 23, 2005
To Not Filibuster
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
No, there is no anti-Israel Bias at the NY Times.
Recently the New York Times published an Op-Ed of a Palestinian who describes the deplorable conditions that he says exist in Israeli prison...
It is interesting to watch as the press seemingly does not want anything to do with the current oil price spike. As oil and gasoline prices...
As I watch what has unfolded in the Valley of the Sun with regards to the Arizona Cardinals, the feeling of the fans and the play of the tea...
I get so tired of the overused word "bipartisan" when people talk about what is happening in the government. True bipartisanship ...
Post a Comment