Your Talking Points On Judicial Nominations

Friday, April 15, 2005 Your Talking Points On Judicial Nominations . . . he shall nominate, and by and with the Advise and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for . . . " - Article II, Section 2. The republicans have done a horrid job of framing the issue of judicial nominations and have lost the momentum on this issue. What will save the republicans? Why, logic, common sense and the Constitution, as usual. But only if you help spread the word about democratic dimthink on this issue, and by offering your own rebuttals to their dubious claims. Here I offer some of that thin tissue of nonsense that is the democratic position on judicial nominations, and how to counter it. "We need full debate on all judicial nominations, and the filibuster helps this." Rubbish. This is what Advise and Consent is for, full debate on the senate floor. No one watches a filibuster on C-Span, it is merely a procedural move now. "Eliminating the filibuster destroys over 200 hundred years of tradition." The filibustering of judicial nomination is a completely new phenomenon, never practiced before in american history. The time to stop it is now, before it becomes an entrenched practice. [ed., actually Abe Fortas was filibustered during, what, the Johnson administration?] "The filibuster protects the rights of the minority". The Constitution has a special provision in Article II, Section 2 directing that all nominations are entitled to an up or down vote after Advise and Consent - it says nothing about a filibuster. The Constitution has provisions for supermajorities in various places, but none of them apply to the nomination of judges. Thus, applying a filibuster creates a supermajority requirement, and is anti-constitutional. "Bush has gotten 99.999999% of all the nominations he wanted." Yeah, but he is entitled to 100% of them according to the Constitution. "But the republicans filibustered Clinton's nominees!" No, they didn't. Go ahead and Google it - I dare you. Update: Linked to Outside The Beltway for its Beltway Traffic Jam. Update: Hugh Hewitt (via KRLA) reminds us that the dems have admitted that the filibustered nominees offered so far would all have been confirmed in an up or down vote. In fact, the republicans would let the dems debate them all day on the floor if they want. I accuse the democrat supporters of the filibuster of bad faith. What else can it be. Hugh has also pledged $1000 to Lincoln Chafee's dem opponent if Linc helps uphold the filibuster rule. Food for thought. 12:58 PM | | |