Tuesday, May 10, 2005

Break the Filibuster

The American press is entirely without historical perspective, and blind to it's own biases. As the author clearly states, the democracts didn't even dream of filibustering Bork or Clarence Thomas. Time for the Senate to invoke majority rule on judicial nominations.....................T
"There is no rationale for a filibuster, however, when the Senate is acting under Article 2 in advising and consenting to presidential nominations. This is why the filibuster has historically not been used on nominations. This is the constitutional logic underlying 200-plus years of American political practice. This is why as recently as 14 years ago the possibility of filibustering Clarence Thomas, for example, was not entertained even by a hostile Democratic Senate that was able to muster 48 votes against him. The American people seem to grasp this logic. In one recent poll, 82 percent said the president's nominees deserve an up or down vote on the Senate floor."

1 Comment:

Anonymous said...

Now, now, I hate to see a grown man cry or is it 'men' crying?

Bush has gotten over 90% of the judges he has asked for, yet he is crying over a mere 10 or so radical judges that only radical Republicans would want in there anyway.

Keep in mind that there are a huge number of judges that the Republicans should have filibustered to keep out, who were appointed by the Democrats.

Too bad they didn't have the nerve to stand up for what is right in those cases. Now we are stuck with a bunch of worthless molly-coddling judges in many areas of this country.

Once again, the Republicans have let us down.