Rainsford, let's deal with this quote of yours:
Ok, this is not complex, please pay more attention in Civics or Government class next time. We do not elect an all powerful majority in this country. Our country is based on the idea of ruling by the majority while PROTECTING THE MINORITY. That is why an opposition party is crucial, or should 49% of the people in the country get screwed over because they aren't the majority?
Weren't you awake during the last election? We DID elect a majority. Yes, the minority is provided protections under the constitution but we are still a country of majority rule with checks and balances included to provide that protection. A filibuster is not a check or balance.
As to your next remark:
Interesting...reading the constitution and amendments does not seem to show what you are talking about here, perhaps you could point it out. In any case, think about what you are saying. You are suggesting that the Democrats (and people for many years before them) are engaging in what amounts to activity not allowed under the constitution. Does that really make sense?
Oh yes, it does make sense if you look at what politicians have been doing for 200 years. Since when does a little thing like "you can't do that" stopped a politician from EITHER party?
As to questions earlier about the constitution, here's a quote from MR. STEVEN CALABRESI Professor of Law Northwestern University Law School.
The U.S. Constitution was written to establish a general presumption of majority rule for congressional decision-making. The historical reasons for this are clear. A major defect with the Constitution?s precursor, the Articles of Confederation, was that it required super-majorities for the making of many important decisions. The Framers of our Constitution deliberately set out to remedy this defect by empowering Congress to make most decisions by majority rule. The Constitution thus presumes that most decisions will be made by majority rule, except in seven express situations where a two-thirds vote is required. The seven exceptional situations where a super-majority is required include: overriding presidential vetoes, ratifying treaties, approving constitutional amendments, and expelling a member.
That's what I was talking about when saying the filibuster is "allowed" in some situations. It invokes the super majority rule, which is what is covered in the constitution. The historical accuracy of the above comment can be easily confirmed.
And DaveSimmons, your quote:
Perhaps because I'm independent, I think requiring a supermajority is a good idea for lifetime judicial appointments regardless of which party currently has the simple majority.
That's fine, if you can change the rules. They haven't as yet so trying to require that is simply wrong. Actually, to change the rule to require a super majority for judicial nomines would most likely require a constitutional ammendmant. Congrats though, you are one of the few to mention the "goings on" during the judicial confirmation process under Clinton by the Republicans. Actually, to be more accurate it was what they did with the committees, more so than any filibustering of any consequence. BTW, I think that was just as wrong but it (slowing the committee review process) was allowed by rules that are still in place.
As to those that still think it is the Republicans that are pursuing the nuclear option, here's a bit more to "chew on".
In article 2, section. 2., clause 2 it says that the president "... shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ? Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States". Pretty clear there that the Senate is merely in a position of giving or withholding consent to seat a judicial nominee on the bench. The Constitution says nothing about committees to hear the qualifications of the nominees first nor does it mention any ability that the Senate might have to block those nominees. It is quite clear that all they can do is say "yea" or "nay". And for most of the 200 years, that has been what has happened. An up or down vote, a yes or a no.
But, even if that were not the case and one might be able to imagine some scenario where the Constitution does sanction filibusters of judicial nominations. The Constitution says that the Senate may create it?s own rules for its proceedings. However, upon further review..............
Article 1, section. 5. , clause 2 says: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings".
So, even if the Republican controlled Senate decided to quash the filibuster, it is entirely Constitutional to do so. If you don't like the game the way it is played, blame the voters who elected and increased the numbers of the majority party; enabling them to quash the unconstitutional application of super majority rule in the judicial confirmation process.
Facebook
Twitter