Advice and Consent.

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by pegwinn, Jul 10, 2005.

  1. pegwinn
    Offline

    pegwinn Top of the Food Chain

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Messages:
    2,549
    Thanks Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +329
    Here is the opening salvos in the media war to FORCE the President to actually get, in my words, preapproval before an actual nomination. Hopefully they will fail and we will not be denied the three ring circus as the fight escalates. Maybe a two-fer

    O'Connor, Rehnquist and the Future of the Court
    Peter Rothberg
    Sun Jul 10,10:42 AM ET

    The Nation -- On Friday, newsrooms nationwide were abuzz with rumors that Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist was set to announce his resignation, only one week after his colleague Sandra Day O'Connor had given President Bush his first Supreme Court vacancy. Rehnquist hasn't done it yet but is still widely expected to do so, maybe as early as tomorrow.

    O'Connor's resignation alone has already ignited an epic struggle over the direction of the Court with the future of legal abortions, affirmative action for minority groups, government aid to religious schools and other issues that have long divided US society potentially at stake.

    In anticipation of Bush meeting with Senate leaders to discuss potential new nominees, IndependentCourt.org, a project of the Coalition for a Fair and Independent Judiciary, drafted an open letter signed by more than 75 national organizations, stressing the importance of meaningful consultation with both parties as well as the critical--and legitimate--role the Senate should play in the confirmation process. Click here to read the full text of the letter and, if you agree with it, click here to add your name to the list of signatories.

    MORE
     
  2. USViking
    Offline

    USViking VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2005
    Messages:
    1,452
    Thanks Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Greensboro, NC USA
    Ratings:
    +69
    The Republicans could have passed rules changes eliminating the fillibuster (ie the "nuclear option") for judicial nominees (or eliminating it altogether, as I wish they would).

    They stopped short because the Democrats gave ground on a few Lower Court nominations.

    With much more vital Supreme Court seats in question, I predict the Republicans will accept nothing less than an agreement on an up or down vote, and that if this is not forthcoming, the "nuclear option" will be passed.
     
  3. pegwinn
    Offline

    pegwinn Top of the Food Chain

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Messages:
    2,549
    Thanks Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +329
    I don't care if they filibuster. I'd be entertained as they do a real old school filibuster. No bathroom breaks, no reprieve. Quorum calls. I think they are gonna fight and of course they will lose. I just hope the president doesn't cave in and get permission from a core group of senators to nominate someone.
     
  4. USViking
    Offline

    USViking VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2005
    Messages:
    1,452
    Thanks Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Greensboro, NC USA
    Ratings:
    +69
    The trouble is, forty-plus Democratic Senators can engineer a filibuster without any stress on anyone's urinary or lower GI tracts.

    Also, in a Democracy the majority is actually supposed to be able to uphold appointments, as well as pass legislation. The fillibuster is a undemocratic anacronism which should never have been instituted, and which should be abolished entirely.
     
  5. ScreamingEagle
    Offline

    ScreamingEagle Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    12,887
    Thanks Received:
    1,610
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,159
    From the liberals' open letter to the President:

    Since when is it a qualification of a judge to:

    1) unite the country?
    2) earn confidence of everybody?
    3) win bipartisan support?

    These "requirements" are totally bogus.
    The liberals are on the run.
    This is their Waterloo.
    Their last stand at the Alamo.
    It is time to destroy them and their legislating from the bench.

    If the Republicans could accept the Dem's choice of the ACLU communist, Ruth Bader Ginsberg,
    then the Dems can accept any choice made by Bush!
     

Share This Page