Should Judges be Subject to Filibuster?
I don’t normally print such long quotes, but I feel it necessary in order to discuss the subject of judicial filibuster properly. I also hate to break up a sentence so as not to take anything out of context.
The following is from the U.S. Constitution, Article II, section 2, paragraph 2. The “he” referred to in the paragraph is the President of the United States.
“He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; 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, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”
It is commonly recognized by ALL Senators that the fact that the constitution specifically states that treaties must be approved by 2/3 of the Senators present, and does not mention a “super majority” with regard to the appointment of judges, etc., that these appointments call for a “simple majority” for approval. In fact EVERY Federal Judge, Supreme Court Justice, Ambassador, public Minister, Consul, other Officer, etc. referred to in this paragraph has been “approved by the Senate by a “simple majority.”
EVERY SINGLE JUDGE WHO IS TODAY ON OUR FEDERAL COURTS WAS NOMINATED BY A PRESIDENT AND APPROVED BY A “SIMPLE MAJORITY” OF SENATORS. A “SIMPLE MAJORITY” BEING A VOTE OF 51-50!!!!!!!!!
EVERY SINGLE ONE!!!!!!!!!!!
One exceptionally controversial vote came with Clarence Thomas. Clarence Thomas was APPROVED by ONLY 52 Senators voting for him.
NOW the democrats want to change the rules. They have for four years actually changed the Constitution of the United States of America! (Just in case you are wondering, of the seven times the Constitution requires a super majority of the Senate to vote on an issue, one of them is to amend the constitution.)
It boils down to this. EVERYONE agrees that the Constitution only requires a “simple majority”, but now the democrats have said it should take a 60-40 “super majority” vote to allow the 51-50 “simple majority” vote to take place. Since a vote of 60-40 is required BEFORE the Constitutionally called for 51-50 vote can take place, they have essentially rewritten the Constitution. It now takes 60 votes to “approve” a judge or other appointment, when the Constitution CLEARLY states that it only requires 51!!
Clear and convincing EVIDENCE of the Senate understanding the intent of the Constitution is the case of Clarence Thomas. Considering that only 52 Senators voted for him, common sense would tell you that those in opposition to Clarence Thomas’ appointment could easily have found 41 of the 48 Senators who did NOT vote for his confirmation to vote against allowing the Senate to vote. ANY intellectually honest person would HAVE to admit that the Senate KNEW that the filibuster was not an option here or SOMEONE would have tried it.
The Senate is permitted to make it’s own rules. However, they may not make Senatorial rules which subvert the intent of the framers who wrote the Constitution.
The Senate COULD make a “rule” which states that every Supreme Court ruling must be approved by the Senate before it is official. After all the Constitution does not specifically state that the Senate may not pass a “rule” requiring this, it must be deduced (using common sense) from the “separation of powers” portion of the Constitution. Since this would be in direct conflict with the intent of the Constitution, the rule would not be allowed to stand.
The democrats in the Senate have used a rule in a way which is in direct conflict with the intent (using common sense) of the Constitution, then argue that the Constitution does not specifically prohibit it, just as it NEVER mentions the Senate not being allowed to require their approval on Supreme Court rulings, one must use common sense to find that in the “separation of powers”. Their abuse of this rule should likewise not be allowed to stand!!
Read more about it at...
ABC News: Frist Won't Budge on Filibuster Demands
Think for yourself!
Make up your own mind!
The following is from the U.S. Constitution, Article II, section 2, paragraph 2. The “he” referred to in the paragraph is the President of the United States.
“He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; 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, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”
It is commonly recognized by ALL Senators that the fact that the constitution specifically states that treaties must be approved by 2/3 of the Senators present, and does not mention a “super majority” with regard to the appointment of judges, etc., that these appointments call for a “simple majority” for approval. In fact EVERY Federal Judge, Supreme Court Justice, Ambassador, public Minister, Consul, other Officer, etc. referred to in this paragraph has been “approved by the Senate by a “simple majority.”
EVERY SINGLE JUDGE WHO IS TODAY ON OUR FEDERAL COURTS WAS NOMINATED BY A PRESIDENT AND APPROVED BY A “SIMPLE MAJORITY” OF SENATORS. A “SIMPLE MAJORITY” BEING A VOTE OF 51-50!!!!!!!!!
EVERY SINGLE ONE!!!!!!!!!!!
One exceptionally controversial vote came with Clarence Thomas. Clarence Thomas was APPROVED by ONLY 52 Senators voting for him.
NOW the democrats want to change the rules. They have for four years actually changed the Constitution of the United States of America! (Just in case you are wondering, of the seven times the Constitution requires a super majority of the Senate to vote on an issue, one of them is to amend the constitution.)
It boils down to this. EVERYONE agrees that the Constitution only requires a “simple majority”, but now the democrats have said it should take a 60-40 “super majority” vote to allow the 51-50 “simple majority” vote to take place. Since a vote of 60-40 is required BEFORE the Constitutionally called for 51-50 vote can take place, they have essentially rewritten the Constitution. It now takes 60 votes to “approve” a judge or other appointment, when the Constitution CLEARLY states that it only requires 51!!
Clear and convincing EVIDENCE of the Senate understanding the intent of the Constitution is the case of Clarence Thomas. Considering that only 52 Senators voted for him, common sense would tell you that those in opposition to Clarence Thomas’ appointment could easily have found 41 of the 48 Senators who did NOT vote for his confirmation to vote against allowing the Senate to vote. ANY intellectually honest person would HAVE to admit that the Senate KNEW that the filibuster was not an option here or SOMEONE would have tried it.
The Senate is permitted to make it’s own rules. However, they may not make Senatorial rules which subvert the intent of the framers who wrote the Constitution.
The Senate COULD make a “rule” which states that every Supreme Court ruling must be approved by the Senate before it is official. After all the Constitution does not specifically state that the Senate may not pass a “rule” requiring this, it must be deduced (using common sense) from the “separation of powers” portion of the Constitution. Since this would be in direct conflict with the intent of the Constitution, the rule would not be allowed to stand.
The democrats in the Senate have used a rule in a way which is in direct conflict with the intent (using common sense) of the Constitution, then argue that the Constitution does not specifically prohibit it, just as it NEVER mentions the Senate not being allowed to require their approval on Supreme Court rulings, one must use common sense to find that in the “separation of powers”. Their abuse of this rule should likewise not be allowed to stand!!
Read more about it at...
ABC News: Frist Won't Budge on Filibuster Demands
Think for yourself!
Make up your own mind!
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home