Scary Shit: WSJ floats trial balloon on scrapping confirmation of judges

altogether.

The Byrd Option--II
He says the Senate doesn't have to vote on judges, so the GOP should mail it in.

Robert Byrd is an expert on Senate rules and procedures, on which he has written a four-volume history. So we paid notice when a friend called our attention to the West Virginia Democrat's latest pronouncement on the confirmation of President Bush's judicial nominees.

Shortly before Congress recessed for Easter vacation, here's what the Senator said on Fox's "Hannity & Colmes": "The President is all wrong when he maintains that a nominee should have an up-or-down vote. The Constitution doesn't say that. The Constitution doesn't say that that nominee shall have any vote at all. There doesn't have to even be a vote."

As the Senator says, Article II of the Constitution is silent on how the Senate shall exercise its "advice and consent" power in confirming judicial nominees. For more than 200 years, however, that body has interpreted the Founders' injunction to mean that a simple majority of Senators--51 in our age--must vote to confirm. That's why we cried foul in President Bush's first term when Democrats filibustered 10 appeals-court nominees, thereby denying them an up-or-down vote on the floor--even though every candidate had the support of a bipartisan majority. A vote to end a filibuster requires a super-majority of 60 Senators.

But now that Senator Byrd has expressed the view that the Senate doesn't have to vote at all, here's a better idea for ending the impasse over judicial nominations: Fifty-one of the 55 Republican Senators can simply send the President a letter expressing their support for his candidates. Under Mr. Byrd's Constitutional analysis, the Senate will have exercised "advice and consent" and the judges will be confirmed.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006507

Somebody tell me this whole idea is full of shit.

... or wants to delude the public on the nature of the process.

The WSJ is biased, indecent and ideological to a fault. Let that remain as judgment on their interpretation.

is one of the places where their echo chamber starts up, and before you know its all over hate radio and all of the sudden its actually happening.

... and it goes nowhere.

Everything the `pugs demand now will come back to haunt them a few years hence. What you have to remember is that Repugs are unified, but basically stupid. That means you have a majority of idiots.

That counts in the long term. :)

open to interpretation to whoever holds the power to meet whatever goal they're trying to achieve.


"Q. Why has our Constitution been classed as "rigid"?
A. The term "rigid" is used in opposition to "flexible" because the provisions are in a written document which cannot be legally changed with the same ease and in the same manner as ordinary laws. The British Constitution, which is unwritten, can, on the other hand, be changed overnight by act of Parliament."

http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters/constitution_q_and_a.html

As usual.

If the WSJ wants to talk about what the Constitution requires with regard to the nomination of federal judges, then they should be honest and talk not just about the "consent" portion, but also about the "advise" part.

The reason the filibuster has become the only and final weapon available to the minority in the Senate is because, as Christy Harvey and Judd Legum state in an article for The Nation:

"(Bush) has ripped the "advice" out of "advice and consent." He has stubbornly refused to substantively communicate with any senators who oppose his nominees. When the Senate fails to confirm his nominees, Bush just reappoints them or, worse, bypasses the Senate altogether and installs them on the bench during a recess. This kind of toxic environment makes judicial filibusters more likely."

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0305-29.htm

"Advice and consent" go hand in hand. If Bush sought the advice of the Senate Democrats, he wouldn't have any problem with the consent part. And don't think for a minute he couldn't find qualified candidates who would be acceptable to Senators of both parties. More of Bush's nominees have been confirmed that Clinton's and vacancies on the federal bench are at the lowest level in fifteen years.

Bush's problem is that he wants to ram through extreme right-wing idealogues. The Constitution's requirement for the advice and consent of the Senate is intended to combat exactly this problem.

The WSJ's argument is dishonest. Read the Legum/Harvey article linked above. It sets out the truth needed to counter this kind of crap.

There is no provision that judges be confirmed by any sort of vote in the constitution. That's the right part.

The WSJ is incorrect in thinking that letters to the White House would have any sort of effect legally. Compliance with advice and consent is determined by the Senate, as advice and consent is one of their duties. For 216 years, advice and consent has been construed as requiring a vote on judicial nominees. If the GOP wants to change this process now, they have to change the rules of the Senate in regard to the duty.

They could choose to follow the WSJ's advice and avoid the rule. The net result would be a constitutional crisis. At that moment, the Democratic party would have no reason to remain in the government because it would be evident that the GOP has no intent to obey even the forms of governance.

In a way, it would be fun to watch. Democrats could get a head start on the 2006 election by overwhelming GOP districts with visits and information. Plus, it would boost donations quite a bit.

in the Constitution for a vote on Cabinet nominees. Nor does the Senate have to hold hearings on whether to confirm anyone. And there is also nothing in the Constitution about the president being deferential to a state's senators when naming judges in that state.

So the Republicans could change the Senate's rules if they wanted to and trash 200 years of tradition. But they do so at their great peril, because what goes around comes around.

Just that the House members, etc, be 'chosen' by the people. The manner of choosing is not spelled out.

:eyes: