To read the tribute to SFC Marcus Muralles, please click here
Thursday, June 23, 2005
A Civics Lesson
Let's start with the Constitution:
You know... I'm sure the President is more than willing to ask the Democrats about his nominees. He's a nice guy that way. Just don't be surprised if he ignores what they have to say about them. His choices tend to be strict constructionists, not people who do their darnedest to legislate from the bench.
When a Democrat was in the White House, the GOP did not fillibuster any judicial nominees who had majority support. They voiced their opposition. They made their feelings known... BY VOTING AGAINST THE NOMINEE. None of this temper-tantrum whining. Maybe the Dems should try it. Just a thought.
Why is this a big deal? Rumor has it that Renquist will announce his resignation next week. So... that's two appointments- one for Chief Justice and one to replace the person who gets elevated to CJ. That's why it's a big deal.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. (Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2) (emphasis mine)That's been a popular phrase tossed around a lot lately. Democrats think that means that they can fillibuster President Bush's judicial nominees if they feel like it (oh, I'm sorry... If they're "radicals"). The Republicans think that means that the Senate should give an up or down vote to the President's nominees. Which brings us to this story:
Senate Democrats are urging President Bush to consult with them on a possible Supreme Court nomination to help avoid the kind of controversy that engulfed his lower court picks.OK... let's check with dictionary.com on this one:
consult: 1(a) To seek advice or information of:So... the Democrats want President Bush to seek their advice? Uh... isn't that what the Constitution says he's supposed to do anyway? "and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate," right? Oh, wait... that's not what they mean?
"It doesn't take much to get our consent," Kennedy said. "All the president has to do is seek out his preferred non-ideological choices, ask us about them, and listen to our answers." (emphasis mine)So... who gets to decide who is a "non-ideological" choice? The President? The Democrats who want to stack the Judiciary with activist judges?
You know... I'm sure the President is more than willing to ask the Democrats about his nominees. He's a nice guy that way. Just don't be surprised if he ignores what they have to say about them. His choices tend to be strict constructionists, not people who do their darnedest to legislate from the bench.
When a Democrat was in the White House, the GOP did not fillibuster any judicial nominees who had majority support. They voiced their opposition. They made their feelings known... BY VOTING AGAINST THE NOMINEE. None of this temper-tantrum whining. Maybe the Dems should try it. Just a thought.
Why is this a big deal? Rumor has it that Renquist will announce his resignation next week. So... that's two appointments- one for Chief Justice and one to replace the person who gets elevated to CJ. That's why it's a big deal.
