SharksWithLasers -- Seth Cooper

A CUTTING-EDGE BLOG FOR THE WORLD OF THE 21st CENTURY, Currently operated by Seth L. Cooper, a 27 year-old attorney in Seattle (sethlcooper at comcast dot net)

Tuesday, May 17, 2005

SENATE DEMS' STALLING & SLANDERING OF JUDICIAL NOMINEES CONTINUES. With the debate over nominations to the federal judiciary heating up and then heating up further, NRO's "Bench Memos" makes for a good reading resource throughout the day. Speaking of NRO, U.S. Civil Rights Commissioner Peter Kirsanow has a fine article spotlighting fillibustered Justice Janice Rogers Brown: "The Dems’ Post-Nuclear Nightmare."

There is a myriad of articles, op-eds and blog posts available discussing the nuclear option/constitutional option/Byrd option aka dastardly majority rule in the legislative branch of government. There are also plenty of posts and articles--such as Kirsanow's--that show the utter incomprehensibility of the slanders made against President Bush's judicial nominees. Equally incomprehensible are the slanderers themselves. Democratic leaders who compare these distinguished nominees to terrorists are either dishonest in the extreme or deluded in the extreme.

A notable instance of this off-the-deep-end mentality exhibited by the Senate Democrats holding the minority in their chamber is the investigations into the financial backgrounds of several currently-serving appellate judges and other potential nominees for the U.S. Supreme Court. Robert Novak wrote a big, big BIG column about this yesterday. (Hat tip, Drudge.)

We the people have spoken in the last two congressional elections. The people want the judicial nominees to have an up-or-down vote in the Senate. If Sen. Bill Frist and the majority in the Senate calls for a rule change to end the fillibustering, I fully support them.

(Downtown Seattle, WA)


  • At 7:41 AM, Anonymous Josef, Chief Blogger of I Blog 4 Senator Cantwell said…

  • At 1:34 PM, Blogger Otter said…

    I posted on this as well

    We have had a democracy envied by the world since 1789, in part because the rights of the minority are protected in the Senate (since 1806). For 111 years, only unanimous consent could end a filibuster, but democracy did not falter. The filibuster has been used by both parties for good and for evil, but it has been effective in preventing absolute tyranny of the majority.

    This controversy is not over these 7 judges; it is a manifestation of the current administration's "win at any cost" philosophy. If they win, the long-term consequences will be immeasurable.

  • At 4:05 PM, Blogger Doc NOS said…

    Otter, I agree. This isn't really about the judges - only idiots think that. It's about the system that's in place now, and what consequences will come about should the rules change. As to what those will be, we do not know. Scary.

    It seems a very scary thing to sacrifice so that Frist can look like he's standing up for GOP rights to make his base happy for 2008.

  • At 10:27 PM, Blogger Coop said…

    Simply put, this is about majority rule in the Senate--and a move to counter the unprecedented fillibustering of qualified judicial nominees. Some of the blockage of judicial nominees have been racially motivated. I've stated my opinion and will wait and see if Senate Dems want to face yet another tough election season for their obstruction.

    I had previously done digging on the Senate rules and history. In the earliest days, there wasn't a fillibuster. It was an oversight in the rules that permitted the fillibuster in the Senate, and on NUMEROUS occasions throughout the history of the Senate moves were made to change the rules, but for political considerations it did not happen.

    President Bush has made plenty of overtures on the judicial nominees, and they've all been met with obstruction in return.

    This thing will come to a head on Tuesday--we'll wait and see what happens...


Post a Comment

<< Home