Slashdot Mirror
Republican Senators May 'Go Nuclear'
expriest writes "In an attempt to confirm Bush's most conservative nominees to the federal bench, Senate Republican leaders are considering a nuclear option. Under this procedure, the person chairing the Senate rules that filibusters of judicial nominations are unconstitutional. Republicans claim a simple majority (51 senators) would be all that is necessary to uphold this ruling, and therefore give them the power to confirm judges. The problem with this procedure, however, is that the Supreme Court could still overrule the Senate, and the status of the then improperly confirmed judges would be unknown."
The lack of news concerning democrat politicians is disturbing.
Maybe that's because the Democrats aren't trying to usurp the very democratic underpinnings that this nation was built upon. While there was partisanship when the Democrats were in power, they at least attempted to give the opposing party a voice, something that the modern GOP has demonstrated *repeatedly* they have no interest in doing. The GOP is the one that has basically abandoned the committee system in favor of a "Whatever Bush or Delay wants" system, where NO compromises are made, government is closed to public or opposing scrutiny, and graft, corruption, and wanton criminality occurs at unprecedented levels.
Try turning off "Cock" Hannity and opening your eyes. The GOP is trying to turn the US into a one-party state, totalitarian and theocratic, and that is a bad thing for YOU.
Marbury v. Madison held that the courts had the power to rule on the constitutionality of actions of the other branches of government when those actions properly came before the court for their enforcement (actually, Chief Justice Marshall was remarkably clever because what he found unconstitutional was a law granting particular powers to the court itself, so he grabbed greater power for the court by refusing to accept lesser power).
The case did not say that the Supreme Court was the only one of the three branches of government entitled to decide the constitutionality of laws or other government actions. And in fact the court has generally worked hard to stay out of the internal affairs of the other branches of government. I strongly suspect that, if a lawsuit was filed over a judicial appointment under such circumstances, the court would decide that, since there was a certification from the President of the Senate that the Senate had confirmed the nominee, and the president had in fact appointed that nominee, then that's the end of the question for them. It's Congress' job to regulate itself, not the Court's.
Definition:
t e_majority_leader.html
"A time-delaying tactic associated with the Senate and used by a minority in an effort to delay, modify or defeat a bill or amendment that probably would pass if voted on directly. The most common method is to take advantage of the Senate's rules permitting unlimited debate."
From http://www.acpa.nche.edu/govrel/terms.htm
The GOP used the same tactic against Clinton, but now it's the Dems who came up with this "crazy idea"?
This is the first time the filibuster has been used to block judicial appointments. The filibuster is used by the minority. During Clinton's second term, the Republicans were in the majority. No need to filibuster.
During Clinton's first term Democrats were the majority. I don't recall Republicans using a filibuster to block judicial nominations. I could be wrong. If someone could prove me wrong I would be glad to look at a source with the information.
Majority leaders:
http://www.fact-index.com/u/un/united_states_sena