7.62FullMetalJacket
Member
The ongoing cultural war in this country (yeah, it ain't over yet) will ultimately be decided by the courts (likely) or the voters (remember, we call them sheeple for a reason). The partisan maneuverings over judicial nominees in the Senate are precedential. Candidates for federal bench seats must be vetted and proposed by the Executive (POTUS), and the Senate performs "advise and consent." There were three (3) critical parts to the Senate function. The minority party has created a fourth. Since the Majority party was unable to overcome the last obstacle, it will now become part of the process.
1. The home-state Senaors do have an unwritten ability to up-or-down the candidate. This is a deferential matter which greases the relationship between POTUS and the "deliberative" body of the Senate (the House is a hot body of representatives elected every two years and, therefore, the "voice" of the people; the Senate is the august and deliberative body which is pressured for re-election only every 6 years).
2. Now the candidate is run through the Senate Judicial Committee. This is where the minority party develops their attack and sound-bite strategy. The minority will be unable to stop the approval of the candidate for the final vote so they start the character assassination there ("out of the mainstream," litmus tests,.....)
3. So now the Senate, all 100, get to vote for the confirmation of the candidate justice/judge. The previous custom was that if the candidate was approved by the Judiciary Committee, then a full confrimation vote by the Senate would occur. Then the individual members could vote on the merits. The four "borked" persons, one withdrew and three still standing (not to mention Pickering), would probably been approved had the Senate rules of old held. It only takes 50 votes on the floor for confirmation (or, more precisely, a simple majority).
4. Now, enter the partisan minority. The Minority party has developed a strategy that twists the rules on their head. They are undertaking a faux fillibuster to prevent the vote on the nominees mentioned. Not a real fillibuster, mind you, but a procedural one. It takes 60 votes to close a fillibuster (cloture). The majority can not get the 60 votes to close, so the nominees do not get their vote. This is obstructionism. This has never happened prior to this Congress. It will no longer be a simple majority vote to confirm a nominee, but a 60/40 vote.
The minority party has been on the slide for a few years. Most of their ideas usually will not pass the constitutional tests unless they have leftward leaning judges. They have now changed the art of war.
Whether or not you are a leftist/rightist, you must agree that every nominee deserves due process. The Senate function is to "advise and consent" not to pillory and obstruct.
To show how low the minority party has gone, read a few of the memos below (Wall Steet Journal).
'He Is Latino'
Why Dems borked Estrada, in their own words.
Saturday, November 15, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST
Now that the Senate has concluded its 30-hour talkathon on judicial filibusters, we thought readers might like to peer inside the filibustering Democratic mind, such as it is.
This plunge into the murky deep comes from staff strategy memos we've obtained from the days when Democrats ran the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2001-02. Or, rather, appeared to run the committee. Their real bosses are the liberal interest groups that more or less tell the Senators when to sit, speak and roll over--and which Bush judges to confirm or not. Here are some excerpts:
November 6, 2001/To: Senator Dick Durbin
"You are scheduled to meet with leaders of several civil rights organizations to discuss their serious concerns with the judicial nomination process. The leaders will likely include: Ralph Neas (People For the American Way), Kate Michelman (NARAL), Nan Aron (Alliance for Justice), Wade Henderson (Leadership Conference on Civil Rights), Leslie Proll (NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund), Nancy Zirkin (American Association of University Women), Marcia Greenberger (National Women's Law Center), and Judy Lichtman (National Partnership). . . .
". . . The primary focus will be on identifying the most controversial and/or vulnerable judicial nominees. The groups would like to postpone action on these nominees until next year, when (presumably) the public will be more tolerant of partisan dissent."
November 7, 2001/To: Senator Durbin
"The groups singled out three--Jeffrey Sutton (6th Circuit); Priscilla Owen (5th Circuit); and Caroline [sic] Kuhl (9th Circuit)--as a potential nominee for a contentious hearing early next year, with a [sic] eye to voting him or her down in Committee. They also identified Miguel Estrada (D.C. Circuit) as especially dangerous, because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment. They want to hold Estrada off as long as possible."
February 28, 2002/To: SENATOR [Kennedy]
"Ralph Neas called to let us know that he had lunch with Andy Stern of SEIU. Andy wants to be helpful as we move forward on judges, and he has great contacts with Latino media outlets . . ."
April 17, 2002/To: SENATOR [Kennedy]
"Elaine Jones of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund tried to call you today. . . . Elaine would like the Committee to hold off on any 6th Circuit nominees until the University of Michigan case regarding the constitutionality of affirmative action in higher education is decided by the en banc 6th Circuit. . . . The thinking is that the current 6th Circuit will sustain the affirmative action program, but if a new judge with conservative views is confirmed before the case is decided, that new judge will be able, under 6th Circuit rules, to review the case and vote on it."
June 12, 2002/To: SENATOR (Kennedy)
"...Ultimately, if [Chairman Pat] Leahy insists on having an August hearing, it appears that the groups are willing to let [Timothy] Tymkovich [10th Circuit] go through (the core of the coalition made that decision last night, but they are checking with the gay rights groups)."
Mr. Tymkovich apparently got the gay OK.
:banghead: :banghead:
-------------------------------------
So, we have two choices. Do nothing or support the majority party. RKBA will depend on the courts. The tide is turning.
I wish to bring focus on the Republicrat/Demican issue most bring up. The two parties are voting on these nominees as a block. Is this enough of a difference for you?
I forgot to mention that the nominees held in purgatory are strict constructionists (i.e. the constitution means what it says and says what it means). So, in short, these nominees are, or are not, going to be deciding RKBA issues in the future.
Where do you stand?
1. The home-state Senaors do have an unwritten ability to up-or-down the candidate. This is a deferential matter which greases the relationship between POTUS and the "deliberative" body of the Senate (the House is a hot body of representatives elected every two years and, therefore, the "voice" of the people; the Senate is the august and deliberative body which is pressured for re-election only every 6 years).
2. Now the candidate is run through the Senate Judicial Committee. This is where the minority party develops their attack and sound-bite strategy. The minority will be unable to stop the approval of the candidate for the final vote so they start the character assassination there ("out of the mainstream," litmus tests,.....)
3. So now the Senate, all 100, get to vote for the confirmation of the candidate justice/judge. The previous custom was that if the candidate was approved by the Judiciary Committee, then a full confrimation vote by the Senate would occur. Then the individual members could vote on the merits. The four "borked" persons, one withdrew and three still standing (not to mention Pickering), would probably been approved had the Senate rules of old held. It only takes 50 votes on the floor for confirmation (or, more precisely, a simple majority).
4. Now, enter the partisan minority. The Minority party has developed a strategy that twists the rules on their head. They are undertaking a faux fillibuster to prevent the vote on the nominees mentioned. Not a real fillibuster, mind you, but a procedural one. It takes 60 votes to close a fillibuster (cloture). The majority can not get the 60 votes to close, so the nominees do not get their vote. This is obstructionism. This has never happened prior to this Congress. It will no longer be a simple majority vote to confirm a nominee, but a 60/40 vote.
The minority party has been on the slide for a few years. Most of their ideas usually will not pass the constitutional tests unless they have leftward leaning judges. They have now changed the art of war.
Whether or not you are a leftist/rightist, you must agree that every nominee deserves due process. The Senate function is to "advise and consent" not to pillory and obstruct.
To show how low the minority party has gone, read a few of the memos below (Wall Steet Journal).
'He Is Latino'
Why Dems borked Estrada, in their own words.
Saturday, November 15, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST
Now that the Senate has concluded its 30-hour talkathon on judicial filibusters, we thought readers might like to peer inside the filibustering Democratic mind, such as it is.
This plunge into the murky deep comes from staff strategy memos we've obtained from the days when Democrats ran the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2001-02. Or, rather, appeared to run the committee. Their real bosses are the liberal interest groups that more or less tell the Senators when to sit, speak and roll over--and which Bush judges to confirm or not. Here are some excerpts:
November 6, 2001/To: Senator Dick Durbin
"You are scheduled to meet with leaders of several civil rights organizations to discuss their serious concerns with the judicial nomination process. The leaders will likely include: Ralph Neas (People For the American Way), Kate Michelman (NARAL), Nan Aron (Alliance for Justice), Wade Henderson (Leadership Conference on Civil Rights), Leslie Proll (NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund), Nancy Zirkin (American Association of University Women), Marcia Greenberger (National Women's Law Center), and Judy Lichtman (National Partnership). . . .
". . . The primary focus will be on identifying the most controversial and/or vulnerable judicial nominees. The groups would like to postpone action on these nominees until next year, when (presumably) the public will be more tolerant of partisan dissent."
November 7, 2001/To: Senator Durbin
"The groups singled out three--Jeffrey Sutton (6th Circuit); Priscilla Owen (5th Circuit); and Caroline [sic] Kuhl (9th Circuit)--as a potential nominee for a contentious hearing early next year, with a [sic] eye to voting him or her down in Committee. They also identified Miguel Estrada (D.C. Circuit) as especially dangerous, because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment. They want to hold Estrada off as long as possible."
February 28, 2002/To: SENATOR [Kennedy]
"Ralph Neas called to let us know that he had lunch with Andy Stern of SEIU. Andy wants to be helpful as we move forward on judges, and he has great contacts with Latino media outlets . . ."
April 17, 2002/To: SENATOR [Kennedy]
"Elaine Jones of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund tried to call you today. . . . Elaine would like the Committee to hold off on any 6th Circuit nominees until the University of Michigan case regarding the constitutionality of affirmative action in higher education is decided by the en banc 6th Circuit. . . . The thinking is that the current 6th Circuit will sustain the affirmative action program, but if a new judge with conservative views is confirmed before the case is decided, that new judge will be able, under 6th Circuit rules, to review the case and vote on it."
June 12, 2002/To: SENATOR (Kennedy)
"...Ultimately, if [Chairman Pat] Leahy insists on having an August hearing, it appears that the groups are willing to let [Timothy] Tymkovich [10th Circuit] go through (the core of the coalition made that decision last night, but they are checking with the gay rights groups)."
Mr. Tymkovich apparently got the gay OK.
:banghead: :banghead:
-------------------------------------
So, we have two choices. Do nothing or support the majority party. RKBA will depend on the courts. The tide is turning.
I wish to bring focus on the Republicrat/Demican issue most bring up. The two parties are voting on these nominees as a block. Is this enough of a difference for you?
I forgot to mention that the nominees held in purgatory are strict constructionists (i.e. the constitution means what it says and says what it means). So, in short, these nominees are, or are not, going to be deciding RKBA issues in the future.
Where do you stand?