Friday, May 13, 2005

who you calling a filibuster, chump?

Despite claims from the Democratic Party that judicial filibusters are part a 200+ year old system of checks and balances, the Constitution says otherwise, and debunks their allegations.
The Constitution is a brilliant document, and while the Democrats regularly invoke the Constitution, they seem conveniently ignorant to what it actually says.
There are only seven specific instances where a super-majority vote is required: I can link to them if you would like, but guess what---a supermajority is not required to confirm judicial nominations.
It is the constitutional obligation of the Executive to appoint individuals to the Judiciary, and it is the obligation of the Legislative to “advise and consent,” where they have an opportunity to vote up or down on the nomination. The Senate confirms by a majority vote the president’s choices for cabinet members, ambassadors, federal judges, and many other important government officials. The Senate usually allows presidents free rein in selecting cabinet officers and other members of their own administrations. On the other hand, the Senate often closely scrutinizes nominees for the Supreme Court and other judicial positions, which are lifetime appointments.

By using a parliamentary procedure to prevent an up or down vote, the obstructionists Democrats are violating their oath to uphold the Constitution, and failing to perform their Senatorial duty.


Post a Comment

<< Home