Dear Editor,
I know Jim McCann so I will give him the benefit of the doubt
that he was not trying to cloud the issue of the filibuster of
judicial nominee’s and thereby mislead his fellow Gilroyans (and
former high school classmate, me).
Dear Editor,
I know Jim McCann so I will give him the benefit of the doubt that he was not trying to cloud the issue of the filibuster of judicial nominee’s and thereby mislead his fellow Gilroyans (and former high school classmate, me). The comparison between the judicial nominees’s obstructed by one political party or another does not justify either. The purpose of the Senate in its function in regard to judicial appointments is advise and consent.
The Constitution, in Article II Section 2, gives the president the following powers:
“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.”
Dale Franks said it well on the QandO blog a couple of days ago, “The Democrats argue that filibusters of judicial nominations are constitutional because the Constitution does not say that appointments are confirmed by a majority vote. In fact, the Constitution says precisely that. Please note that the Constitution specifically requires a two-thirds majority to ratify treaties made by the president. Had the Framers intended a supermajority for presidential appointments, they certainly could have required it. The fact that they did not indicates quite clearly that the Framers intended for a simple majority to be sufficient to confirm presidential nominees. The filibuster, as such, appears nowhere in the Constitution.”
The other argument the Democrats make is that eliminating the filibuster would limit debate. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist offered to allow 100 hours of debate for each nominee. Now we all know how long-winded politicians can be, but 100 hours should be more than enough to allow the entire Senate to decide on whether or not a nominee is a good one. The Democrats answer that, “After 100 hours of debate, the voices of the minorities will be silenced.” What? No, please! Not the race card! Was Miguel Estrada German? No, he was born in Tegucigalpa, Honduras. He is a Latino who just happened to be a conservative Republican.
The truth be told, Democrats must win this battle because they know that the majority of Americans disagree with their socialist policies. By stacking the court with their brand of activist judges who show no compunction at legislating from the bench, Democrats do not have to fear the people who have voted to protect marriage in California overwhelmingly, or to prevent our tax dollars from supporting and educating illegal aliens. The latter, Proposition 187, which would have taken the burden off of taxpayers and removed a major incentive of those entering our country illegally, was stopped from being enacted by a liberal activist court judge who wrongly extended constitutional protections intended for legal immigrants to illegal aliens. The will of the people be damned.
It is time that the shamelessly partisan Democrats allow an up or down vote before the full Senate on each and every Bush Nominee.
Power to the people!
Mark A. Zappa, Gilroy
