And The Senate Continues To Simmer
From the Washington Times today, the rhetoric is heating up on both sides, and the Democrats continue to spin.
http://ap.washingtontimes.com/dynamic/stories/F/FILIBUSTER_FIGHT?SITE=DCTMS&SECTION=HOME
"The attempt to do away with the filibuster is nothing short of clearing the trees for the confirmation of an unacceptable nominee to the Supreme Court," said Democratic Leader Harry Reid. He accused the president of an attempt to "rewrite the Constitution and reinvent reality" with his demand for a yes-or-no vote on all nominees.
Democrats are guilty of "unprecedented obstruction," countered Republican Whip Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, arguing that Bush's Senate critics had overturned 214 years of tradition by blocking votes on several of the president's conservative candidates.
The day of choreographed debate on the floor unfolded as compromise-minded senators negotiated privately in the office of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and leaders of both parties held dueling staged-for-television events designed to court black voters.
"Why are they afraid to put a black woman on the court?" asked Bishop Harry Jackson, chairman of a group of black pastors, standing next to Majority Leader Bill Frist at a news conference outside the Capitol. Referring to Janice Rogers Brown, a California Supreme Court judge whom Bush has named to the federal appeals court, he called her "not only a legal hero for black America, she is a legal hero for all America."
Reid really has no clue what he is talking about. He calls the likes of Janice Rogers Brown and Priscilla Owens "unacceptable", yet the ABA disagrees with him. Not only do they disagree with him, but many a legal scholar also question Reid’s comments. McConnell is correct on the Democrats obstructionism in the Senate. They have been engaging in these antics for five years now.
And the continued push for "further debate" is not washing. They have had four years of said debate, the time to vote is now. The president, nor the GOP, are attempting to "rewrite" the Constitution. That statement is simply retarded. The filibuster is nowhere in the Constitution. It is a rule, and for over one hundred seventy years, it stood as a viable option against legislation.
It was never applied to any nominee until Abe Fortas in the late sixties. And he was "filibustered" by a bipartisan effort by members of the Senate. Pres. Johnson nominated Fortas as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and he did so late in his final year in office. Fortas was forced to resign from the Supreme Court when it was discovered he had pocketed a $20,000 retainer from the foundation of jailed financier Louis Wolfson.
And I would seriously like to know where Reid gets the idea that nominees that pass out of committee do not deserve a simple majority vote. I cannot locate where his idea is within the Constitution, but I can locate where these people should be given their appropriate vote. It is under Article II, Section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution. How many times must we repeat this: "Advice" comes in committee, and "Consent" comes on the floor of the Senate. That is where their vote comes.
And it is not a "supermajority" vote. Such votes are clearly enumerated with thin the Constitution. Three such instances are listed under Article I. They are as follows:
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.—Section 5, Clause 2
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law. –Section 7, Clause 2
Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.—Section 7, Clause 3
Those three sections specifically apply to Congress; Article I deals only with the powers of Congress. None of them cite a needed two-third majority, or supermajority, for the approval of nominees. A two-thirds vote is required for the choosing of the President, only if no clear winner is determinable. And under Article V, a two-thirds majority is necessary for amending the Constitution. Again, that has nothing to do with any nominee that is a presidential appointment.
This fight is only going to get nastier as the Democrats continue to dig in. And they have. In the middle of this Washington Times piece is this from the Congressional Black Caucus:
He [Frist] made his comments after members of the Congressional Black Caucus said he had declined to meet with them to discuss the issue. The Democratic lawmakers proceeded to a news conference where they released a letter to the Tennessee Republican arguing that his call for a partial ban on judicial filibusters "would be particularly offensive to people of color."
Offensive to people of color? Do these people know their history? The ban on the filibusters will allow people like Janice Rogers Brown and Miguel Estrada make it to the federal bench where they belong. Based on this asinine comment from them, one can only determine that somewhere along the way, Janice Rogers Brown has become "white".
It is appalling that the Caucus only seeks to assist blacks if they are Democrats, or support Democrats. Ms. Brown supports and stands for the Constitution, and she interprets it properly. She does not make law out of whole cloth, and I am sure that is another reason why the Caucus dislikes her. They do not have an "ace" on the DC court of appeals, if she is approved by the senate, nor will they have an "ace" on the Supreme Court if she is nominated to take up any vacancy that might arise. This is not the first time the Caucus has stood against a nominee. I remember them savaging Clarence Thomas during his confirmation proceedings.
And I know the Left is attempting to "move the goalposts" on this issue; they have recently referred to this fight as a fight over the "separation of powers". It has nothing to do with the separation of powers. This has to do with a rule that was established that is being abused my the party in the minority. Reid has made comments in regard to the minority being a "check" against the majority.
Incorrect once again, Senator. The Senate—in fact, Congress—is a check against the executive branch. That is what "checks and balances" within the Constitution are. It is not there for one party to be a pain in the @$$ of the other. It is there to make sure that the White House—the executive branch—does it’s job, and does so properly.
Prior to Frist’s final move on the Constitutional Option, I suggest he hand out copies of the Constitution to Democrats and RINOs alike. It sounds like they need a refresher course on it.
The Bunny ;)
From the Washington Times today, the rhetoric is heating up on both sides, and the Democrats continue to spin.
http://ap.washingtontimes.com/dynamic/stories/F/FILIBUSTER_FIGHT?SITE=DCTMS&SECTION=HOME
"The attempt to do away with the filibuster is nothing short of clearing the trees for the confirmation of an unacceptable nominee to the Supreme Court," said Democratic Leader Harry Reid. He accused the president of an attempt to "rewrite the Constitution and reinvent reality" with his demand for a yes-or-no vote on all nominees.
Democrats are guilty of "unprecedented obstruction," countered Republican Whip Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, arguing that Bush's Senate critics had overturned 214 years of tradition by blocking votes on several of the president's conservative candidates.
The day of choreographed debate on the floor unfolded as compromise-minded senators negotiated privately in the office of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and leaders of both parties held dueling staged-for-television events designed to court black voters.
"Why are they afraid to put a black woman on the court?" asked Bishop Harry Jackson, chairman of a group of black pastors, standing next to Majority Leader Bill Frist at a news conference outside the Capitol. Referring to Janice Rogers Brown, a California Supreme Court judge whom Bush has named to the federal appeals court, he called her "not only a legal hero for black America, she is a legal hero for all America."
Reid really has no clue what he is talking about. He calls the likes of Janice Rogers Brown and Priscilla Owens "unacceptable", yet the ABA disagrees with him. Not only do they disagree with him, but many a legal scholar also question Reid’s comments. McConnell is correct on the Democrats obstructionism in the Senate. They have been engaging in these antics for five years now.
And the continued push for "further debate" is not washing. They have had four years of said debate, the time to vote is now. The president, nor the GOP, are attempting to "rewrite" the Constitution. That statement is simply retarded. The filibuster is nowhere in the Constitution. It is a rule, and for over one hundred seventy years, it stood as a viable option against legislation.
It was never applied to any nominee until Abe Fortas in the late sixties. And he was "filibustered" by a bipartisan effort by members of the Senate. Pres. Johnson nominated Fortas as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and he did so late in his final year in office. Fortas was forced to resign from the Supreme Court when it was discovered he had pocketed a $20,000 retainer from the foundation of jailed financier Louis Wolfson.
And I would seriously like to know where Reid gets the idea that nominees that pass out of committee do not deserve a simple majority vote. I cannot locate where his idea is within the Constitution, but I can locate where these people should be given their appropriate vote. It is under Article II, Section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution. How many times must we repeat this: "Advice" comes in committee, and "Consent" comes on the floor of the Senate. That is where their vote comes.
And it is not a "supermajority" vote. Such votes are clearly enumerated with thin the Constitution. Three such instances are listed under Article I. They are as follows:
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.—Section 5, Clause 2
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law. –Section 7, Clause 2
Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.—Section 7, Clause 3
Those three sections specifically apply to Congress; Article I deals only with the powers of Congress. None of them cite a needed two-third majority, or supermajority, for the approval of nominees. A two-thirds vote is required for the choosing of the President, only if no clear winner is determinable. And under Article V, a two-thirds majority is necessary for amending the Constitution. Again, that has nothing to do with any nominee that is a presidential appointment.
This fight is only going to get nastier as the Democrats continue to dig in. And they have. In the middle of this Washington Times piece is this from the Congressional Black Caucus:
He [Frist] made his comments after members of the Congressional Black Caucus said he had declined to meet with them to discuss the issue. The Democratic lawmakers proceeded to a news conference where they released a letter to the Tennessee Republican arguing that his call for a partial ban on judicial filibusters "would be particularly offensive to people of color."
Offensive to people of color? Do these people know their history? The ban on the filibusters will allow people like Janice Rogers Brown and Miguel Estrada make it to the federal bench where they belong. Based on this asinine comment from them, one can only determine that somewhere along the way, Janice Rogers Brown has become "white".
It is appalling that the Caucus only seeks to assist blacks if they are Democrats, or support Democrats. Ms. Brown supports and stands for the Constitution, and she interprets it properly. She does not make law out of whole cloth, and I am sure that is another reason why the Caucus dislikes her. They do not have an "ace" on the DC court of appeals, if she is approved by the senate, nor will they have an "ace" on the Supreme Court if she is nominated to take up any vacancy that might arise. This is not the first time the Caucus has stood against a nominee. I remember them savaging Clarence Thomas during his confirmation proceedings.
And I know the Left is attempting to "move the goalposts" on this issue; they have recently referred to this fight as a fight over the "separation of powers". It has nothing to do with the separation of powers. This has to do with a rule that was established that is being abused my the party in the minority. Reid has made comments in regard to the minority being a "check" against the majority.
Incorrect once again, Senator. The Senate—in fact, Congress—is a check against the executive branch. That is what "checks and balances" within the Constitution are. It is not there for one party to be a pain in the @$$ of the other. It is there to make sure that the White House—the executive branch—does it’s job, and does so properly.
Prior to Frist’s final move on the Constitutional Option, I suggest he hand out copies of the Constitution to Democrats and RINOs alike. It sounds like they need a refresher course on it.
The Bunny ;)
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 3:21 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home