You can't be serious. How else is the Senate supposed to manifest its consent?

Well, I'm glad Dorian and Rush are able to read more into the Constitution than the previous 42 presidencies including THE MAN WHO PRESIDED OVER THE CONSTIUTIONAL CONVENTION AND THE MAN WHO WROTE MOST OF IT.

Seriously, this is proposed tyranny and putting the Republicans over the Republic. I'd also point out the obvious political point that the Democrats could have the same power if they win back the White House.

The question that should be asked is what happened to Bush's mandate ? Social Security and UN and judicial nominees stalled in a Republican dominated legislative branch.

Quack quack. Aw, this duck is really lame.

The wording of the Constitution was very carefully chosen.

Yes it was. And so were the actions of General Washington and Mr. Madison who I suspect knew a lot more about what they were doing in the summer of 1787 than you, me or Rush.

Von Bek--

The Founding Fathers never intended for a supermajority to be necessary when confirming judicial nominees. I am not reading *more* into the Constitution. To the contrary, I'm reading it as written.

Read the Federalist Papers. You'll see Mr. Madison was more than a little concerned about the tyranny of the majority. Take a look at #10. The filibuster is certainly a tool to ensure that the tyrany of the majority is held in check. And filibusters were used quite a bit way back when, specifically by John Randolph of Roanoke, who Russel Kirk rightly puts in as one of the leading shpaers of American conservatism.

von,

feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

Though i thought the pratices having to have 60 votes for a judical nomination was put into pratice well after 1787, eventhough it is still around 100 years old.

VB--

That's absurd.

If the losing, defeated, minority party can block *every* judicial nominee with a filibuster, then what was the point of winning? The majority has rights too.

Yes, cube, as there were not 30 states in the Union until 1848 with Wisconsin so there were not 60 votes in the Senate.

I think filibustering is certainly within the rights of a minority in the Senate and is a fair check and balance in a republic.

However, getting back to what Dorian actually proposed in his post, having the president appoint officials, be it Cabinet or judicial or ambasatorial, without votes in the Senate is despotism, worse than anything George III could have ever dreamed of doing.

It is also hubris and the heights of folly for if we gave that power to Bush, we would also give it to a Democrat, a radical or a supporter of Biblical law if they were elected to the White House.

I'm sorry if you think Mr. Madison and the rights of a minority are absurd. However the filibuster has been active for well over 200 years. Has the minority ever done such a thing ? Of course not.

Dorian: I don't quite understand how you're reading voting on judges out of the constitution... As Ugarte more succintly put it, how else could a legislative body possibly manifest its advice and consent? What you would have the senate do instead?

As an aside, I don't necessarily disagree with your supermajority comment above (I agree with Von Bek's view of the filibuster, but I don't think that was the point of your post).

VB--

Actually, I am suggesting that we follow the strict letter of the law, as it is written in the Constitution. That means: a president nominates judicial nominees and, with the advice and consent (and "consent" could just be a letter with the signatures of 51 senators reading "Yes, we consent") of the senate, appoints them. That is a lot closer to the true meaning of the Constitution than a ridiculous supermajority vote requirement for appellate judges.

Well I'm glad Dorian clarified his remarks. However the "spirit of the COnstiution" has nothing to do with democracy. We have a republic.

Von Bek, off the topic but you had a question in the comments here: http://www.alarmingnews.com/archives/002850.html

Dorian,
Why 51 signatures? Why not just the President of the Senate give a thumbs up on the way to the mess hall?

Von Bek:

Didn't you know that Rush Limbaugh is a highly respected Consitutional scholar? I don't know how you could have missed it.

Dorian:

The real problem is having an independent judiciary to begin with isn't it? I mean like that guy said at that meeting of "conservatives" talking about our "runaway courts", Stalin had the right idea: No man, no problem.

How much longer do I have to wait until that independent judiciary sentences Rush to prison?

The whole thing is moronic.

If President Bush really wants these people to be judges, just do a freaking recess appointment. Or is Bush too dumb to know he can do that????

Interesting clarification Dorian, but wrong again. The Republicans filibustered to keep Abe Fortas from being elevated to Chief Justice.

That letter of consent probably violates centuries of Senate procedure. I can't believe that you care so little about the stability of Congress as an institution that you think changing the rules for partisan advantage is a good idea.

Ugarte--

You are incorrect.

The filibuster was *not* used in derailing the Fortas nomination. In fact, Fortas got his up-or-down vote in the senate, and went on to be confirmed to the Supreme Court. His candidacy for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was filibustered--that's probably what you were referring to--but his nomination for the Federal Bench was voted upon, and confirmed.

ummm Dorian, sweetie,

His candidacy for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was filibustered--that's probably what you were referring to-

Yes, that is exactly what Ugarte was referring to, we know that because he wrote:

The Republicans filibustered to keep Abe Fortas from being elevated to Chief Justice.

I'm certain this lapse on your part is due to far too many hours staring at the Constitution.

Not Dawn Summers--

The point that Ugarte made was was irrelevant--a red herring--because the very justice that he cited as allegedly having been filibustered wasn't, in fact, filibustered when he was nominated to the Federal Bench. He was voted, and approved.

He said his elevation to chief justice was filibustered. You agreed. Thus endeth the lesson.

Not Dawn Summers--

What do you not get?

The man *wasn't*--absolutely *wasnt*--filibustered out of a place on the Federal Bench.

D

Elevation to CJ is the exact same process as nomination to the bench, Dorian. You can split hairs if you want to, but the central theme is that you misread my post and accused me of getting the history wrong. I did not.

Do you really think elevation to CJ is less important than nomination for a random District Court post or the 5th Circuit? When Fortas got filibustered by the Republicans the precedent was set.

Ugarte--

Again, you are incorrect.

The filibustering of a guy who was already approved in a fair, up-or-down vote is *obviously* not the same thing as disallowing a judicial candidate from a vote altogether. You are comparing two things that are incomparable.

You make it sound as if the two votes occurred simultaneously. At the time Fortas was nominated for Chief Justice he happened to be holding a job as a JSC. When nominated for a new position, he had to go through the confirmation process all over again. Any of the current judicial nominees that the Dems are threatening to filibuster are currently employed, they just aren't employed as judges. You are pissed off because the filibuster is currently working against you, so you are drawing a distinction where there is none.

More sadly, you have no vision of the role the Constitution is supposed to play in protecting minority parties. Being a fan of constitutional tyranny doesn't make you much of a constitutional scholar.

"'m suggesting that we follow the strict letter of the law, as it is written in the Constitution. That means: a president nominates judges and, with the advice and consent of the senate (and "consent" could be a letter with the signatures of 51 senators that reads, "Yes, we consent"), appoints them."

This just shows that, despite calling yourself a US citizen, you have very little understanding of the Constitution. The Constitution allows the Senate to set up its own rules and thus their own definition of "advise and consent." If the senate wanted to pass a rule requiring 100 votes for consent, that would be perfectly constitutional.

Just because you come from a country that has a history of totalitarian rulers doing away with legislative and judicial checks doesn't mean that we should import such failed systems here.