Senator McCain Needs A Lesson
Normally, I would defer to Thomas when it comes to beating on Sen. McCain like a drum, but in this case, I will take it. It seems that he sent a letter to someone that was concerned over his presence in the Gang of Fourteen deal struck in May of this year regarding the president’s judicial nominees. This was a piece from that letter.
We did not use the filibuster to block President Clinton’s judicial nominees because we successfully prevented many of those nominees from coming to the Senate floor for a vote or from even receiving a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Please know that anyone who claims Republicans haven’t prevented Democratic nominees who had the support of a majority of Senators from receiving an up or down vote on the Senate floor is simply not telling you the truth. (emphasis mine)
So, who is not telling the truth? The pundits? The bloggers? The legal scholars that have condemned the move? The italicized talking point above is a gross misstatement. The GOP has NEVER utilized a filibuster to block any nominee, with the exception of Abe Fortas; a man known by both sides to be corrupt, and was opposed in like fashion.
The only spot of truth is the beginning. The GOP did defeat his unfit nominees in committee, or prior to their hearings. (Granted, unless a serious, egregious mark shows up on their record, I believe these people should have had their hearings. Only a personal move, made by the nominee, should prevent them from their hearing before their respective congressional committee.) However, we at the Asylum, point to the most foolish move by the GOP in not killing Ginsburg in committee, and then failing to even mount an attempt to stop her on the floor of the Senate.
And as for truth, let us take another look at the ill-fated deal, just to refresh our memories on how bad this deal really was.
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS
We respect the diligent, conscientious efforts, to date, rendered to the Senate by Majority Leader Frist and Democratic Leader Reid. This memorandum confirms an understanding among the signatories, based upon mutual trust and confidence, related to pending and future judicial nominations in the 109th Congress.
This memorandum is in two parts. Part I relates to the currently pending judicial nominees; Part II relates to subsequent individual nominations to be made by the President and to be acted upon by the Senate’s Judiciary Committee.
We have agreed to the following:
Part I: Commitments on Pending Judicial Nominations
A. Votes for Certain Nominees. We will vote to invoke cloture on the following judicial nominees: Janice Rogers Brown (D.C. Circuit), William Pryor (11th Circuit), and Priscilla Owen (5th Circuit).
B. Status of Other Nominees. Signatories make no commitment to vote for or against cloture on the following judicial nominees: William Myers (9th Circuit) and Henry Saad (6th Circuit).
Part II: Commitments for Future Nominations
Future Nominations. Signatories will exercise their responsibilities under the Advice and Consent Clause of the United States Constitution in good faith. Nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist.
Rules Changes. In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement, we commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress, which we understand to be any amendment to or interpretation of the Rules of the Senate that would force a vote on a judicial nomination by means other than unanimous consent or Rule XXII.
We believe that, under Article II, Section 2, of the United States Constitution, the word "Advice? speaks to consultation between the Senate and the President with regard to the use of the President’s power to make nominations. We encourage the Executive branch of government to consult with members of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for consideration.
Such a return to the early practices of our government may well serve to reduce the rancor that unfortunately accompanies the advice and consent process in the Senate.
We firmly believe this agreement is consistent with the traditions of the United States Senate that we as Senators seek to uphold.
Under future nominations, no provision was given to define the term "extraordinary circumstances." What exactly is that. To the Democrats, it seems to revolve around Roe V. Wade, and a man’s religious beliefs. To the media it seems to be about adoption records, and the archaic ideas of fashion that he and his family subscribe to. (That is not my opinion; the WaPo beat up his family over their wardrobe.) But it was never defined, and because it was not the idea is subject to interpretation.
What may be extraordinary for one, might not be so to another. But, I distrust that idea to its core, and the media is showing me why. When CNN took the NARAL account, and agreed to show their egregiously false ad about him, and directly targeted it towards the northeast where three of the Deal signatories reside, then the game’s afoot. The other side, along with McCain, is trying to open the door as wide as possible for the Democrats to drive the Filibuster Express through. They’re giving them an opening to make this man’s life a living hell.
And then the deal speaks about "advice and consent," of which they know little about. We have said it before, and despite my reluctance to repeat it for the umpteenth time, again, "advice" comes in committee and "consent" comes on the floor of the Senate. It does not apply to the choice of the nominee at all. They should not even be included in the process. As a matter of fact, in Federalist #76, Hamilton specifically warns against such a move.
Those who have themselves reflected upon the subject, or who have attended to the observations made in other parts of these papers, in relation to the appointment of the President, will, I presume, agree to the position, that there would always be great probability of having the place supplied by a man of abilities, at least respectable. Premising this, I proceed to lay it down as a rule, that one man of discernment is better fitted to analyze and estimate the peculiar qualities adapted to particular offices, than a body of men of equal or perhaps even of superior discernment.
The sole and undivided responsibility of one man will naturally beget a livelier sense of duty and a more exact regard to reputation. He will, on this account, feel himself under stronger obligations, and more interested to investigate with care the qualities requisite to the stations to be filled, and to prefer with impartiality the persons who may have the fairest pretensions to them. He will have FEWER personal attachments to gratify, than a body of men who may each be supposed to have an equal number; and will be so much the less liable to be misled by the sentiments of friendship and of affection. A single well-directed man, by a single understanding, cannot be distracted and warped by that diversity of views, feelings, and interests, which frequently distract and warp the resolutions of a collective body. There is nothing so apt to agitate the passions of mankind as personal considerations whether they relate to ourselves or to others, who are to be the objects of our choice or preference. Hence, in every exercise of the power of appointing to offices, by an assembly of men, we must expect to see a full display of all the private and party likings and dislikes, partialities and antipathies, attachments and animosities, which are felt by those who compose the assembly. The choice which may at any time happen to be made under such circumstances, will of course be the result either of a victory gained by one party over the other, or of a compromise between the parties. In either case, the intrinsic merit of the candidate will be too often out of sight. In the first, the qualifications best adapted to uniting the suffrages of the party, will be more considered than those which fit the person for the station. In the last, the coalition will commonly turn upon some interested equivalent: "Give us the man we wish for this office, and you shall have the one you wish for that.'' This will be the usual condition of the bargain. And it will rarely happen that the advancement of the public service will be the primary object either of party victories or of party negotiations.
The president, it was determined by the Framers, and ratified by the people, would have the sole choice—alone—of deciding on nominees. Yet, we saw the Democrats seemingly force their way into the White House for "negotiations" over nominees. This never should have happened. Further, the vote on the Senate floor was never to be a "supermajority." It was an up or down vote, as James Monroe makes explicitly clear in this quote from the Virginia Ratifying Conference that took place on June 10, 1788:
He is to nominate, and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States. THE CONCURRENCE OF A BARE MAJORITY OF THOSE WHO MAY BE PRESENT WILL ENABLE HIM TO DO THESE IMPORTANT ACTS. (Emphasis mine)
That is pretty cut and dry. So is this debate. The deal was bad, what they are doing to Judge Roberts is inexcusable, and Sen. McCain either cannot read, or does not understand the Constitution. He also does not seem to remember the deal he participated in. Had he remembered, he might not have drafted such an idiotic letter.
The Bunny ;)
Normally, I would defer to Thomas when it comes to beating on Sen. McCain like a drum, but in this case, I will take it. It seems that he sent a letter to someone that was concerned over his presence in the Gang of Fourteen deal struck in May of this year regarding the president’s judicial nominees. This was a piece from that letter.
We did not use the filibuster to block President Clinton’s judicial nominees because we successfully prevented many of those nominees from coming to the Senate floor for a vote or from even receiving a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Please know that anyone who claims Republicans haven’t prevented Democratic nominees who had the support of a majority of Senators from receiving an up or down vote on the Senate floor is simply not telling you the truth. (emphasis mine)
So, who is not telling the truth? The pundits? The bloggers? The legal scholars that have condemned the move? The italicized talking point above is a gross misstatement. The GOP has NEVER utilized a filibuster to block any nominee, with the exception of Abe Fortas; a man known by both sides to be corrupt, and was opposed in like fashion.
The only spot of truth is the beginning. The GOP did defeat his unfit nominees in committee, or prior to their hearings. (Granted, unless a serious, egregious mark shows up on their record, I believe these people should have had their hearings. Only a personal move, made by the nominee, should prevent them from their hearing before their respective congressional committee.) However, we at the Asylum, point to the most foolish move by the GOP in not killing Ginsburg in committee, and then failing to even mount an attempt to stop her on the floor of the Senate.
And as for truth, let us take another look at the ill-fated deal, just to refresh our memories on how bad this deal really was.
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS
We respect the diligent, conscientious efforts, to date, rendered to the Senate by Majority Leader Frist and Democratic Leader Reid. This memorandum confirms an understanding among the signatories, based upon mutual trust and confidence, related to pending and future judicial nominations in the 109th Congress.
This memorandum is in two parts. Part I relates to the currently pending judicial nominees; Part II relates to subsequent individual nominations to be made by the President and to be acted upon by the Senate’s Judiciary Committee.
We have agreed to the following:
Part I: Commitments on Pending Judicial Nominations
A. Votes for Certain Nominees. We will vote to invoke cloture on the following judicial nominees: Janice Rogers Brown (D.C. Circuit), William Pryor (11th Circuit), and Priscilla Owen (5th Circuit).
B. Status of Other Nominees. Signatories make no commitment to vote for or against cloture on the following judicial nominees: William Myers (9th Circuit) and Henry Saad (6th Circuit).
Part II: Commitments for Future Nominations
Future Nominations. Signatories will exercise their responsibilities under the Advice and Consent Clause of the United States Constitution in good faith. Nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist.
Rules Changes. In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement, we commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress, which we understand to be any amendment to or interpretation of the Rules of the Senate that would force a vote on a judicial nomination by means other than unanimous consent or Rule XXII.
We believe that, under Article II, Section 2, of the United States Constitution, the word "Advice? speaks to consultation between the Senate and the President with regard to the use of the President’s power to make nominations. We encourage the Executive branch of government to consult with members of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for consideration.
Such a return to the early practices of our government may well serve to reduce the rancor that unfortunately accompanies the advice and consent process in the Senate.
We firmly believe this agreement is consistent with the traditions of the United States Senate that we as Senators seek to uphold.
Under future nominations, no provision was given to define the term "extraordinary circumstances." What exactly is that. To the Democrats, it seems to revolve around Roe V. Wade, and a man’s religious beliefs. To the media it seems to be about adoption records, and the archaic ideas of fashion that he and his family subscribe to. (That is not my opinion; the WaPo beat up his family over their wardrobe.) But it was never defined, and because it was not the idea is subject to interpretation.
What may be extraordinary for one, might not be so to another. But, I distrust that idea to its core, and the media is showing me why. When CNN took the NARAL account, and agreed to show their egregiously false ad about him, and directly targeted it towards the northeast where three of the Deal signatories reside, then the game’s afoot. The other side, along with McCain, is trying to open the door as wide as possible for the Democrats to drive the Filibuster Express through. They’re giving them an opening to make this man’s life a living hell.
And then the deal speaks about "advice and consent," of which they know little about. We have said it before, and despite my reluctance to repeat it for the umpteenth time, again, "advice" comes in committee and "consent" comes on the floor of the Senate. It does not apply to the choice of the nominee at all. They should not even be included in the process. As a matter of fact, in Federalist #76, Hamilton specifically warns against such a move.
Those who have themselves reflected upon the subject, or who have attended to the observations made in other parts of these papers, in relation to the appointment of the President, will, I presume, agree to the position, that there would always be great probability of having the place supplied by a man of abilities, at least respectable. Premising this, I proceed to lay it down as a rule, that one man of discernment is better fitted to analyze and estimate the peculiar qualities adapted to particular offices, than a body of men of equal or perhaps even of superior discernment.
The sole and undivided responsibility of one man will naturally beget a livelier sense of duty and a more exact regard to reputation. He will, on this account, feel himself under stronger obligations, and more interested to investigate with care the qualities requisite to the stations to be filled, and to prefer with impartiality the persons who may have the fairest pretensions to them. He will have FEWER personal attachments to gratify, than a body of men who may each be supposed to have an equal number; and will be so much the less liable to be misled by the sentiments of friendship and of affection. A single well-directed man, by a single understanding, cannot be distracted and warped by that diversity of views, feelings, and interests, which frequently distract and warp the resolutions of a collective body. There is nothing so apt to agitate the passions of mankind as personal considerations whether they relate to ourselves or to others, who are to be the objects of our choice or preference. Hence, in every exercise of the power of appointing to offices, by an assembly of men, we must expect to see a full display of all the private and party likings and dislikes, partialities and antipathies, attachments and animosities, which are felt by those who compose the assembly. The choice which may at any time happen to be made under such circumstances, will of course be the result either of a victory gained by one party over the other, or of a compromise between the parties. In either case, the intrinsic merit of the candidate will be too often out of sight. In the first, the qualifications best adapted to uniting the suffrages of the party, will be more considered than those which fit the person for the station. In the last, the coalition will commonly turn upon some interested equivalent: "Give us the man we wish for this office, and you shall have the one you wish for that.'' This will be the usual condition of the bargain. And it will rarely happen that the advancement of the public service will be the primary object either of party victories or of party negotiations.
The president, it was determined by the Framers, and ratified by the people, would have the sole choice—alone—of deciding on nominees. Yet, we saw the Democrats seemingly force their way into the White House for "negotiations" over nominees. This never should have happened. Further, the vote on the Senate floor was never to be a "supermajority." It was an up or down vote, as James Monroe makes explicitly clear in this quote from the Virginia Ratifying Conference that took place on June 10, 1788:
He is to nominate, and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States. THE CONCURRENCE OF A BARE MAJORITY OF THOSE WHO MAY BE PRESENT WILL ENABLE HIM TO DO THESE IMPORTANT ACTS. (Emphasis mine)
That is pretty cut and dry. So is this debate. The deal was bad, what they are doing to Judge Roberts is inexcusable, and Sen. McCain either cannot read, or does not understand the Constitution. He also does not seem to remember the deal he participated in. Had he remembered, he might not have drafted such an idiotic letter.
The Bunny ;)
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 1:10 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home