Filibuster & Common Misconceptions.
From April 20th's Appleton Post Crescent.
The letter was written by Michael Hengels a Green Party guy so expect it to be way off target.
Question Mr. Hengels, were President Clinton's nominees filibustered or were they disapproved of by the full senate? That is what we are talking about here, these judges would be approved but a minority of the senate is holding them up. The Clinton nominees were disapproved of in good constitutional faith but the Democrats have no such good faith on their side in this fight.
As to the so-called extremity of the ten justices this too is questionable. Jonathan Turley a center-left legal scholar does not see all ten as extreme.
The thing that makes it clear Mr. Hengels is working off of the MoveOn talking points is
The filibuster is none of those things. It is not a constitutional dictate it is the result of a procedural rule the senate can rewrite. The constitution gives the senate the power to sign off on the justices but there is absolutely no rule in the constitution for a super-majority on this point. It is farcical Mr. Hengels casts constitutional language around the filibuster.
The letter was written by Michael Hengels a Green Party guy so expect it to be way off target.
Filibuster prevents mob rule in Senate
During his first term, President Bush made 214 judicial nominations. Of those, 204 were confirmed, a 95 percent success rate. By comparison, in the previous Congress, President Clinton had made 116 nominations, only 73 of which were confirmed by the Republican Senate.
The other 10 nominees during Bush’s first term were rejected because of their extreme views or insufficient qualifications. A lot of noise was made about how unfair this was, but that is simply not the case. President Bush has received better treatment by the Senate than President Clinton, but that does not mean that the Senate can give up its constitutional obligation to consent to presidential appointments.
Now Senate Republicans are seeking to end the filibuster for judicial nominations. This is dangerous to our democracy and must be stopped. The role of the Senate is to ensure that both majority and minority rights and opinions are respected. The filibuster prevents mob rule or rash decisions, and is essential to ensuring that one party does not undermine checks and balances.
Federal judges wield significant power and serve lifetime terms. The appointment process for such an important job should be a difficult one to ensure that only the best people make it.
When 95 percent of nominees are confirmed, there is simply no need to alter longstanding rules that ensure fairness simply to allow the sitting president to push through controversial nominees.
Michael Hengels,
Neenah
During his first term, President Bush made 214 judicial nominations. Of those, 204 were confirmed, a 95 percent success rate. By comparison, in the previous Congress, President Clinton had made 116 nominations, only 73 of which were confirmed by the Republican Senate.
The other 10 nominees during Bush’s first term were rejected because of their extreme views or insufficient qualifications. A lot of noise was made about how unfair this was, but that is simply not the case. President Bush has received better treatment by the Senate than President Clinton, but that does not mean that the Senate can give up its constitutional obligation to consent to presidential appointments.
Now Senate Republicans are seeking to end the filibuster for judicial nominations. This is dangerous to our democracy and must be stopped. The role of the Senate is to ensure that both majority and minority rights and opinions are respected. The filibuster prevents mob rule or rash decisions, and is essential to ensuring that one party does not undermine checks and balances.
Federal judges wield significant power and serve lifetime terms. The appointment process for such an important job should be a difficult one to ensure that only the best people make it.
When 95 percent of nominees are confirmed, there is simply no need to alter longstanding rules that ensure fairness simply to allow the sitting president to push through controversial nominees.
Michael Hengels,
Neenah
Question Mr. Hengels, were President Clinton's nominees filibustered or were they disapproved of by the full senate? That is what we are talking about here, these judges would be approved but a minority of the senate is holding them up. The Clinton nominees were disapproved of in good constitutional faith but the Democrats have no such good faith on their side in this fight.
As to the so-called extremity of the ten justices this too is questionable. Jonathan Turley a center-left legal scholar does not see all ten as extreme.
The thing that makes it clear Mr. Hengels is working off of the MoveOn talking points is
Now Senate Republicans are seeking to end the filibuster for judicial nominations. This is dangerous to our democracy and must be stopped. The role of the Senate is to ensure that both majority and minority rights and opinions are respected. The filibuster prevents mob rule or rash decisions, and is essential to ensuring that one party does not undermine checks and balances.
The filibuster is none of those things. It is not a constitutional dictate it is the result of a procedural rule the senate can rewrite. The constitution gives the senate the power to sign off on the justices but there is absolutely no rule in the constitution for a super-majority on this point. It is farcical Mr. Hengels casts constitutional language around the filibuster.
posted by Marcus Aurelius at 2:08 PM
<< Home