ConfirmThem

By AndrewHyman Comments () / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Wendy Long has an excellent op/ed piece in the Washington Times titled
"Filibuster Myth-Busters." She shoots down various bogus ideas about the filibuster. One of those ideas is that Senators are entitled to demand nominees having their own judicial philosophy (i.e. ideology). Actually, the Senate is just supposed to weed out unfit characters. If Senators say they'll only allow a vote on a particular person of their choosing (e.g. Jerry Springer), then that usurps the nomination power. The usurpation is no less if they only allow a vote on a particular category of people (e.g. raunchy talk-show hosts, or "consensus" nominees). This is the main way the Senate minority is presently violating the Constitution, in my humble opinion. In any event, the Constitution clearly gives a simple majority of the Senate authority to determine its rules.

In other news, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist will speak at a telecast organized by the Family Research Council the evening of April 24, called "Justice Sunday." Some blogs are publishing open letters to fence-sitting Senators, and urge you to do the same. The Senators in question are believed to be Alexander, Chafee, Collins, Hagel, Snowe, Sununu and Warner. As always, the most influential letters are from each Senator's constituents, and their contact info is here.

Senator McCain is right that there will someday be a liberal President with a liberal Senate, just as there have been in the past. The filibuster was not used then to defeat majority-supported nominees, nor should it be used in the future to do so. It's important that presidents be able to shift the direction of the judiciary as they deem necessary, so that in the long run the only surviving precedents will be those that are clearly supported by the objective meaning of our laws.