End of the Filibuster??
First off, I apologize for not blogging for a while--my graduate thesis has kept me far too busy.
The recent "compromise" offered by Senator Bill Frist (R-Tennessee) to ensure all judicial nominees getting an "up-or-down" vote is hardly a compromise. There are a couple of issues at stake here that are key:
1) Every judge deserves an up-or-down vote:
Yes, this is indeed true. Every nominee deserves a vote--the fundamental problem with that is that the Republicans have enough of a majority in the Senate to confirm every Bush judicial nominee. The issue at stake here is, that the Senate democrats have no way of stoperping a nominee they do not approve of. While much of the public agrees that every nominee should have a confirmation vote, I feel as if much of the public does not understand that every Bush nominee who gets a vote will probably be confirmed due to the Republican/Conservative majority of the Senate.
2) The filibuster is being misused:
Is this really true? The filibuster, ideally, is a mechanism used to protect the minority party from the potentially dangerous (in some cases) majority party agenda. Without the filibuster, why even have a minority party? It is critical to ensure, at the very least, a two-party democracy (which leads to a larger problem, which I will not address here). If the filibuster were to be disallowed, what would prevent the majority party to ramrod across an agenda that is not in the best interest of the people, but rather for the best interests of its party. I am NOT implying that the Republicans do not have the people in mind, but simply stating that, without a filibuster, a future majority party could become a tyrannical party. Simply the fear of the filibuster ensures compromise between the parties, and [hopefully] national progress.
3) Should nominees be stopped for being "too conservative?"
This is inherently an extremely complex question. I feel that the most pertinent question should not be whether a nominee is too conservative or too liberal, but whether the discussion of the purpose of the confirmation process. The confirmation process should not be one of ideological agendas--but rather one of the examination of the nominee's ethics, honesty, character, and ability. By ethics, I simply mean, does the nominee uphold the constitution, or does he/she disregard it in his/her prior judicial decisions. The other three are fairly self-explanatory. I have no doubt that at times my definition of "ethics" and ideology may come into clash (such as a Roe v. Wade debate), but generally speaking conservative vs. liberal is not a constitutional debate. Most of us agree that neither the conservative or liberal agenda is unconstitutional--we disagree on which is better. Judges who uphold the consitution, who are honest, able, and have strong character, should be confirmed no matter how liberal or conservative. All the judicial nominees presented to the Senate have excellent records, no matter how conservative, thus should be confirmed. The president has the constitutional right to appoint judges, it is the Senate's responsibility not to scrutinize the political orientation of candidates, but to candidly examine a nominee's character, and ought to disregard, as best they can, ideology. If the Democrats want liberal judges, then they should nominate a better presidential candidate and win the White House.
Finally, is Senator Frist's "compromise" plan a real compromise? Simply stated, no. It is not. 100 hours of discussion merely postpones the inevitability of confirmation, while the purpose of the filibuster is to STOP the confirmation process.
Thus, there are two main points--judges who are nominated who prove to be ethical and able should be confirmed. However, the filibuster must remain legal, albeit as a final and last resort, to protect our democracy. In short, a "good" compromise solution would be, instead of having a requirement that judges are confirmed with only a 51-49 majority, perhaps they should require a 60-40 or a 66-34 majority. This would ensure that the nominees are more carefully presented to the Senate, and would allow each nominee to receive an "up-or-down" vote.
The recent "compromise" offered by Senator Bill Frist (R-Tennessee) to ensure all judicial nominees getting an "up-or-down" vote is hardly a compromise. There are a couple of issues at stake here that are key:
1) Every judge deserves an up-or-down vote:
Yes, this is indeed true. Every nominee deserves a vote--the fundamental problem with that is that the Republicans have enough of a majority in the Senate to confirm every Bush judicial nominee. The issue at stake here is, that the Senate democrats have no way of stoperping a nominee they do not approve of. While much of the public agrees that every nominee should have a confirmation vote, I feel as if much of the public does not understand that every Bush nominee who gets a vote will probably be confirmed due to the Republican/Conservative majority of the Senate.
2) The filibuster is being misused:
Is this really true? The filibuster, ideally, is a mechanism used to protect the minority party from the potentially dangerous (in some cases) majority party agenda. Without the filibuster, why even have a minority party? It is critical to ensure, at the very least, a two-party democracy (which leads to a larger problem, which I will not address here). If the filibuster were to be disallowed, what would prevent the majority party to ramrod across an agenda that is not in the best interest of the people, but rather for the best interests of its party. I am NOT implying that the Republicans do not have the people in mind, but simply stating that, without a filibuster, a future majority party could become a tyrannical party. Simply the fear of the filibuster ensures compromise between the parties, and [hopefully] national progress.
3) Should nominees be stopped for being "too conservative?"
This is inherently an extremely complex question. I feel that the most pertinent question should not be whether a nominee is too conservative or too liberal, but whether the discussion of the purpose of the confirmation process. The confirmation process should not be one of ideological agendas--but rather one of the examination of the nominee's ethics, honesty, character, and ability. By ethics, I simply mean, does the nominee uphold the constitution, or does he/she disregard it in his/her prior judicial decisions. The other three are fairly self-explanatory. I have no doubt that at times my definition of "ethics" and ideology may come into clash (such as a Roe v. Wade debate), but generally speaking conservative vs. liberal is not a constitutional debate. Most of us agree that neither the conservative or liberal agenda is unconstitutional--we disagree on which is better. Judges who uphold the consitution, who are honest, able, and have strong character, should be confirmed no matter how liberal or conservative. All the judicial nominees presented to the Senate have excellent records, no matter how conservative, thus should be confirmed. The president has the constitutional right to appoint judges, it is the Senate's responsibility not to scrutinize the political orientation of candidates, but to candidly examine a nominee's character, and ought to disregard, as best they can, ideology. If the Democrats want liberal judges, then they should nominate a better presidential candidate and win the White House.
Finally, is Senator Frist's "compromise" plan a real compromise? Simply stated, no. It is not. 100 hours of discussion merely postpones the inevitability of confirmation, while the purpose of the filibuster is to STOP the confirmation process.
Thus, there are two main points--judges who are nominated who prove to be ethical and able should be confirmed. However, the filibuster must remain legal, albeit as a final and last resort, to protect our democracy. In short, a "good" compromise solution would be, instead of having a requirement that judges are confirmed with only a 51-49 majority, perhaps they should require a 60-40 or a 66-34 majority. This would ensure that the nominees are more carefully presented to the Senate, and would allow each nominee to receive an "up-or-down" vote.
posted by Kenn at 11:35 AM
0 comments
