JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS: Do common people care?
I am amazed that most people are too busy to know what is going on in the Senate currently regarding the issue of ending the filibuster for Judicial nominations. I am more amazed at how both Republican and Democratic Senators are so entrenched in their positions. It is apparent to me that when Senators can no longer work together from both sides of the aisle, it is time to consider voting out all incumbents, Republican and Democrats alike and return the Senate back to caring about the people's business rather than pursuing zealous ideological positions that separate and divide us, rather than bring us together. The President and Vice President contribute to this divisiveness in spite of the President claiming to work to bring us together. All this when we are in a war, where our young men and women are constantly in harms way, attempting to help foster a democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq, based upon our notion of democracy. I am ashamed as a citizen and angry at the lack of compromise in the Senate. However, I don't believe in compromise when the stakes are as high as they are now. Ending the filibuster will affect lifetime appointments of Judges with a more extreme viewpoint of a minority and harm this democracy. We need more centrists in governing our republic. Someone must heal this division before it is too late. Even if the Republicans are successful in suspending the Rules on filibustering for Judicial nominations, it is a slippery slope. When the Democrats regain the majority, as they certainly will again, when the shoe is on the other foot for Republicans, they won't be so happy they are on the receiving end of this action.
The real question is, do common people care enough to voice their views in a voice that can be heard around the world? I think not and that is most troubling to me. If we lose this true democracy, it will be all our fault, those for ending the filibuster, those against it, and those indifferent or too busy to act. Whether you are for this or against it, get involved and email or phone your Senators and let them know how you feel about this.
The real question is, do common people care enough to voice their views in a voice that can be heard around the world? I think not and that is most troubling to me. If we lose this true democracy, it will be all our fault, those for ending the filibuster, those against it, and those indifferent or too busy to act. Whether you are for this or against it, get involved and email or phone your Senators and let them know how you feel about this.
posted by Charles Amico at 8:00 AM
4 Comments:
In our constitutional democracy, the majority generally gets its way unless that way somehow infringes rights reserved to the minority. The filibuster is a device by which a minority of Senators can prevent a majority of Senators from even voting on a matter: The filibuster is a weapon of mass obstruction. As such, it should be used sparingly and with care.
So now we have Senate Democracts using the filibuster to prevent a vote on several judicial nominees by the full Senate, which would certainly approve them if given the chance. This is an escalation in a political arms race, and particularly dangerous in an institution like the Senate that requires mutual respect and restraint to function.
I am against banning the filibuster for judicial nominees because the Senate needs a weapon of last resort in unusually difficult situations. The appointment of a few conservative judges to the bench is not one of them.
What goes around comes around. We should remember that in the 1950's Strom Thurmond used the filibuster in an attempt to block the Civil Rights Act. Thank God the Senators got to vote on it.
Salemi 1906, when you said, "We should remember that in the 1950's Strom Thurmond used the filibuster in an attempt to block the Civil Rights Act. Thank God the Senators got to vote on it." if you remember the Civil Rights Act eventually passed and although some time was lost in getting it passed, reason prevailed and people moved away from the extremes and came to the center. The filibuster moves people away from the extremes and more towards compromise.
Senator Frist, I'm sorry but I disagree with your position on this and so doesn't 89% of the public, as documented by a poll today, 5/16/05, by CNN's Lou Dobbs. You are making a major mistake which will cost you any successful chance to run for President in 2008, in my view as an Independent.
There is no need to polarize the Senate nor the American people any more. We seem to be polarized plenty right now, thank you very much. I've got a great idea; why don't you save us all from this by saving the fight on something equally important but doesn't seem a grab for more power and politically motivated as this action does. It might be a humbling experience for you to try for a change. Besides, I'm not sure you really know what "balanced and fair" is, but we all have things to learn, so maybe this is what you need to learn.
I've copied some of my "Friends" too so they can write you and let you know what they think as well. You might want to continue this dialogue on my blog by going to:
http://cdiamico.blogspot.com That way others can comment back to you.
Keep in touch. Loved chatting.
Your "friend",
Charles
On May 16, 2005, at 3:14 PM, Senator_Frist@frist.senate.gov wrote:
Dear Friend:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the judicial nomination process. It is an honor to serve in the United States Senate.
As Majority Leader, ensuring that President Bush's judicial nominees receive fair treatment is one of my top priorities. Each of the President's nominees that has been brought before the full Senate has been well-qualified and deserving of approval. The Constitution's "advice and consent" clause clearly gives the Senate the prerogative to accept or reject any of the President's judicial nominations. Unfortunately, a minority of Senators are using Senate rules to stop the confirmation of many of these nominees and thwart the will of the majority. Before the minority's unwise and dangerous filibusters, no judicial nominee with majority support had ever been denied an up or down vote in the Senate. We must restore civility to the Senate and return to a tradition of over 200 years -- giving judicial nominees a fair vote.
I have already taken several steps to address this attack on our Constitution, Senate history, and the judicial system. On June 5, 2003, I proposed a narrow change to Senate rules that would prohibit long term filibustering of judicial nominees. On November 12 - 14, 2003, I held the Senate in session for almost forty straight hours — the longest continuous debate in over 10 years — to force the minority to defend their actions. On April 28, 2005, I proposed holding 100 hours of debate before a vote on each nominee as a way to end the impasse by allowing ample debate but finally allowing each nominee the courtesy of a vote. This proposal also ensured that no judicial nomination could be indefinitely delayed in committee. However, this balanced and fair approach was dismissed out-of-hand by the minority in favor of continued obstruction.
Please visit my Senate website at http://frist.senate.gov for further information regarding the judicial confirmation process and history. Rest assured, I will continue to fight for fair treatment of the President's judicial nominations in the 109th Congress. Anything less is unfair to the nominees, the President, the integrity of the judicial system and the American people.
I think we have witnessed a general degeneration and coarsening of our political process in the U.S. Used to be that the Senate was an elite club in which Senators felt a kinship among themselves in their effort to serve the national interest. Now it is all cut throat partisan politics. Take no prisoners. The fillibuster now seems like a quaint practice (like the Geneva Conventions?) which s in the way of the partisan juggernaut. Too bad.
Post a Comment
<< Home