Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
Well that's the last time I STP.
My primary objections are two fold. One is the implicit notion that had the founders wanted to provide for something other than a simple majority they would have done so. The second is that I think it's one thing to give weight to Senate rules and precedent in how its handles its internal business and another thing to permit those rules to impede on the Constitutional responsbilities of another branch of government.
|
You and the other conservatives raising holy hell on this issue would be a whole lot more believable if you had objected on constitutional grounds when Orrin Hatch let Jesse Helms use a blue slip to block the nomination of Clinton judicial nominees. I'm sure that was completely unconstitutional, too, and it's just a matter of historical accident that no one noticed until the GOP regained the presidency.
Look, if the Senate Republicans want to stick it to the minority party by changing the rules, they should just do it, and accept the consequences -- political, legislative, etc. -- instead of pretending that this has anything to do with the Constitution. What a load of crap. It's a variant of judicial activism, all in the name of installing judicial activists on the bench.
Quote:
|
But I understand your argument. You are essentially saying that how the Senate advises and consents is its own business. I just don't agree when it comes to appointments.
|
Just so long as we're clear that this has more to do with wanting Bush to get his way on judicial appointments than with any principle of constitutional interpretation one might think of.
