Too long a legacy
We need to remind people that Mr. Bush's narrow win of the Presidency should not translate into his automatically getting his way on everything — indeed, even if he won 100 percent of the votes it should not, and the Framers made sure to install a system of checks against that kind of power.
Specifically, Mr. Bush should not be able to have "whoever he wants" appointed to a lifetime seat on an appellate court. Under the present Senate rule, at least 60 Senators must consent to a judicial appointment — a fairly modest restraint, if you ask me.
(I learned just this week that in the early days of our republic a consensus — 100 percent — of the Senate was needed to confirm such an appointment!)
What this argument is really about is whether Republicans can, or should, reject over 200 years of precedent and change the Senate rules so that only 50 of them plus Dick Cheney are needed to confirm a lifetime judicial appointment.
To do so, of course, they will first have to circumvent the rule that 67 votes are needed in order to change the Senate rules! And if that happens, we are truly in a new world.
Republicans love to point to the Democrats as obstructing the process (the new favorite spin), but all the Democrats are doing is threatening to exercise their right to debate the appointment for however long they want, a time-honored practice (by both parties) called “filibustering,” and under present rules it will take 60 votes to shut down debate.
The Republicans are mad as wet hens because they know they can’t get at least five Democrats to agree with them on the 7 (out of over 200) most extreme nominees, so they want to change the rules.
Republicans claim they never filibustered the way the Democrats are threatening to, but that is because the Republicans are much better at this game than Democrats; the 60-plus Clinton nominees that were never approved were mostly held up in Republican-majority committee — which is why the Republicans didn’t have to resort to the filibuster!
Just remember this: A President serves for no more than eight years, during which he gets to run the Government, set policy directions, travel around the country selling bad ideas, go to war, all the good stuff. An appellate judge, on the other hand, gets to be on the bench for a lifetime, far exceeding the term of the one who appoints him.
What Mr. Bush and the Republicans are trying to do here is control what America will be like for the next 30 or 40 years, whether or not the voters decide to choose another path.
We don’t know what events may help to shape our future and our children's future, so we would do well to exercise moderation and choose wisely as we populate the one branch of government that will still be around.
Specifically, Mr. Bush should not be able to have "whoever he wants" appointed to a lifetime seat on an appellate court. Under the present Senate rule, at least 60 Senators must consent to a judicial appointment — a fairly modest restraint, if you ask me.
(I learned just this week that in the early days of our republic a consensus — 100 percent — of the Senate was needed to confirm such an appointment!)
What this argument is really about is whether Republicans can, or should, reject over 200 years of precedent and change the Senate rules so that only 50 of them plus Dick Cheney are needed to confirm a lifetime judicial appointment.
To do so, of course, they will first have to circumvent the rule that 67 votes are needed in order to change the Senate rules! And if that happens, we are truly in a new world.
Republicans love to point to the Democrats as obstructing the process (the new favorite spin), but all the Democrats are doing is threatening to exercise their right to debate the appointment for however long they want, a time-honored practice (by both parties) called “filibustering,” and under present rules it will take 60 votes to shut down debate.
The Republicans are mad as wet hens because they know they can’t get at least five Democrats to agree with them on the 7 (out of over 200) most extreme nominees, so they want to change the rules.
Republicans claim they never filibustered the way the Democrats are threatening to, but that is because the Republicans are much better at this game than Democrats; the 60-plus Clinton nominees that were never approved were mostly held up in Republican-majority committee — which is why the Republicans didn’t have to resort to the filibuster!
Just remember this: A President serves for no more than eight years, during which he gets to run the Government, set policy directions, travel around the country selling bad ideas, go to war, all the good stuff. An appellate judge, on the other hand, gets to be on the bench for a lifetime, far exceeding the term of the one who appoints him.
What Mr. Bush and the Republicans are trying to do here is control what America will be like for the next 30 or 40 years, whether or not the voters decide to choose another path.
We don’t know what events may help to shape our future and our children's future, so we would do well to exercise moderation and choose wisely as we populate the one branch of government that will still be around.
posted by The Voice | 5:17 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home