rtwngAvngr said:It is what you're seeing. You're the one with fun house glasses. America has rejected the leftis agenda. That's why the left is fighting so hard to keep their lefty ninnys in control of the judiciary. This is their last rampart. Their only hope to accomplish their agenda is to ram it down our throats through judicial fiat. Filibustering judicial nominees is a new pathetic low. Surely you can see that.
The same could be said of the Republicans who now control the Senate, if they can't convince even five Democrats to give their "advice and consent" to judicial nominees they change the rules in mid-stream so that they can force their agenda down our throats through democratic and legislative fiat. Let me say this simply, "I did not vote for your Senator," instead "I voted for mine," and "you and your Senator can go to hell." What Republicans are basically doing is arguing that "advice and consent" means simple majority vote, and that reading and interpretation of the Constitution is clearly full of errors.
First, the definition of consent is, "to give assent or approval." If 46 individuals do not give their consent to such appointments, instead they dissent, or in other words, "do not agree to the appointment" than the Senate did not consent to the nomination. Republicans may believe in simple majority appointment because it favors their position but it surely isn't what our Founding Fathers intended when they thought of the appointment process. They did not even consider the political party system that is currently in use, they assumed that there wouldn't be such factions and that no one faction would control the Senate, and therefore they in choosing to word the appointment clause as "advice and consent," thought it would would mean just that. The Senate would advise the President, and consent to his nominee and therefore the Senate would appoint Judges, not the President or the President's faction.
What we have here is a clear dividing line where the Democrats in the Senate do NOT consent, but proactively dissent on certain judicial nominees. On most nominees these Democrats consent even though they don't vote in favor of the appointment. Thus, the President has their consent, not their dissent. Thus, the President has their consent, while not having their vote. Of course Republicans can by mere numerical power shove the Democrats aside, and the Democrats could do very little to stop their tyrannical rule. When the majority resorts to tyranny, minorities never suceed at stopping them but through violent means. Democrats tend to be more civilized than Republicans and therefore they choose not to use such violent methods. One example of the violence that the Republicans now favor is the nuclear option also known as the "do as we say because we say" option. This is the most violent method because the true threat behind it is, "the only way you can stop us from doing what we want is to use force, and we know that you won't use force because you know we will kill you if you do."
The filibuster was used and failed during the events that led up to the civil war, and finally the only way the minority could stop the unfair taxation of the south by the northern states was to rebel, and the civil war proved beyond any doubt the true nature of democratic governments. Force. Time and again, people will not accept the reality that because your Senator thinks someone should be appointed that they should in fact be appointed even if there is such a strong dissenting voice. That is tyranny.