Big Time Bigotry

I am actually just messing with the instructor (something that I enjoy doing in real life).

I don't see any consitutional issues with the majority blocking judicial nominations in committee, or the minority blocking nominations though the fillibuster. I think it is important that we have both because it acts as a balance of power. This President has employed intimindation as a way of doing business (if you don't follow me, you are UnAmerican, or you are either with us or against us attitude). I don't see this as an issue of constitutional presidence, I see this as a ploy by the majority to get whatever they want. Alas, the Democrats tried this same crap in 1993 - and look what happened to them.

I still don't see these judges as being worthy of lifetime employment. -- no matter what the compromise. I guess the statement that pissed me off the worst was AV8R making the blanket statement that this was blantent racism. To confirm or nomiate anyone because of their race or gender is racism -- not the other way around. I think the Republican's used these person's race and gender in a racist/sexist manner to promote their vile cause.

Just my two...

 

There's no doubt that Republicans have used race or gender as a criterion for nominations to the bench, as have the Democrats. That may well be backhanded racism or discrimination.

I don't believe Clarence Thomas was the most qualified judge available at the time he was nominated. His qualifications were good, but he was replacing a black justice, and that's probably the primary reason that the elder Bush nominated him rather than another.

I'm not so certain about the intimidation factor of this President being of a greater magnitude than others throughout history. FDR probably wins the prize for placing the opposition most on the defensive, and they've all used the bully pulpit to get their way. I don't see anything that would distinguish this guy from the others in that respect. But that's just a matter of opinion, no facts to support it.

I still think that the Senate oversteps its bounds when stalling or filibustering Executive Branch nominees. There may not be any direct constitutional issues with the judicial filibuster (it doesn't say "no filibusters", but of course, they hadn't been invented yet in this country), but it's hard to square an "advise and consent" limitation with a de facto supermajority requirment. And that's exactly what the filibuster does. Supermajorities are required in a few places, but certainly not approval of Exec nominations. Perhaps especially not there because it establishes an extra check on the Executive that wasn't contemplated by the Framers. Or else, they would have required a 60 vote Senate supermajority to approve of nominations, wouldn't they?

Where the argument gets interesting to me is when Counselor Osborne contends that the filibuster as a whole, even for legislation, may be unconstitutional. I've heard very few make that argument, but I think he might be right from a constitutional one-representative-one-vote standpoint. The Senate was intended from the outset to be a deliberative body, but that doesn't mean it was intended to be an outright blockade to the will of the majority.

Why don't you write an article on this, Counselor? Would you like to co-author one? Why in the world don't we stop spinning our tires here and start publishing together? Surely we could find some obscure Journal that'd give us a nod.

 

Naw. Rigid and pedantic to the end, that's you all over, little fauss!

 

Be thankful you're not one of my children. They've learned to say: "Oh, daddy, puhleeze!", though.

But irregardless of my inflexibility, would you consider someday co-authoring a little something? I know it's a bad time to ask, but later this Fall, when the exams are not looming so treacherous, perhaps you'll have the time.