Add Reply
Add Comment As A Guest
Close Topic OptionsChecks & Balances vs Republican Way?
Checks Balances Republican Way - Politics, Business, Civil, History - Posted: 22nd May, 2005 - 4:10pm
Posts: 10 - Views: 883
Filibusters in the US SenatePost Date: 10th Apr, 2005 - 5:51pm / Post ID: #
NOTE: News [?]
Checks & Balances vs Republican Way?
SENATE DEMOCRATIC LEADER DEFENDS FILIBUSTERS
Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid said Saturday that the fight over President Bush's judicial nominees is really a battle between Democrats who believe in checks and balances and Republicans who want everything their way.
Ref. Source
Sponsored Links:
Way Republican Balances and Checks
How interesting that CNN would only present one side of the issue.
This whole fight is about a rule in the Senate. The Constitution of the United States says that the President will appoint judges (as well as quite a few other officials) with the "advice and consent" of the Senate. There is no provision within the Constitution for a "supermajority" of the Senate to agree on a judicial nominee, yet this is what the Democrats have been requiring for some time.
The Constitution requires a simple "up or down" vote.
What is particularly interesting about this is that nobody disputes the competence, ability, honesty, or integrity of the people up for judicial appointments! The Democrats are afraid that these judges would actually follow the laws of the land, including the Constitution, in their rulings. Since the positions these judges would fill are in appellate courts, they would have the opportunity and responsibility to reign in the activist judges that are interpreting law and, in effect, creating law, outside of their sworn responsibilities.
As far as the "filibuster" rule that the Democrats are screaming about, they are filibustering. If they actually stood up for 50 straight hours talking, obstructing all business in their attempts to obstruct the President, then the people of the US would see that they are holding onto a shallow, wrong-headed partisan agenda.
This rule needs to be emplaced. A few years ago, when Harry Reid was in the majority party, he agreed that the filibuster shouldn't be used this way. Now that he is in the minority, he is using it to hold the majority party's agend hostage.
The way the Democrats have been acting has been wrong. Completely and utterly wrong. This appears to be the only way that they will be stopped. IMHO.
International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 854 
85.4%
Checks & Balances vs Republican Way? History & Civil Business Politics
Here is a bit more about this subject. It comes from a column in the Washington Times, entitled Filibuster myth-busters
https://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20050...90344-7389r.htm
| QUOTE |
| If you were a senator, whose views would be more important to you: liberal special-interest groups, or registered voters? The liberal groups demand that Democrats filibuster (prevent the Senate from voting on) some of President Bush's best-qualified nominees to the federal appeals courts. But a recent Ayres McHenry nationwide survey reveals that 82 percent of registered voters believe well-qualified nominees deserve a Senate vote. That includes 85 percent of Republicans, 81 percent of Democrats, and 81 percent of Independents. Myth No. 1:Filibuster of judges is a sacred tradition. Fact: The filibuster is nowhere in the Constitution. It is not among the "checks and balances" our Founding Fathers created. It did not even exist until the 1830s, and the "tradition" involves legislation, not judicial appointments. The filibuster was used to defend slavery and oppose the Civil Rights Act - hardly noble purposes. The current obstruction of judges is no "traditional" filibuster: it is the first time in more than 200 years that either party has filibustered to keep judges with majority support off the federal bench. |
I highly recommend the whole article.
International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 854 85.4%
Way Republican Balances and Checks
I think it might be worthwhile to consider what checks and balances really are. The checks and balances are between the branches of government. The Democrats are trying to make it sound like there are meant to be checks and balances between the political parties.
Along with this, I have a couple of commentaries that discuss this subject in more detail.
The first is from the OpinionJournal.
https://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110006596
| QUOTE |
| Rushton further notes that there are a variety of limits on the filibuster already in place. Among them: * You cannot filibuster a federal budget resolution (Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974). * You cannot filibuster a resolution authorizing the use of force (War Powers Resolution). * You cannot filibuster international trade agreements (Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act of 2002). * And as the minority leader, Sen. Harry Reid (D., Nev.), well knows, you cannot filibuster legislation under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. |
The OpinionJounal article led me to this other, deeper and more detailed article.
https://www.nationalreview.com/comment/rush...00504211218.asp
(Actually, the quote above came from this article.)
| QUOTE |
| Despite efforts by special-interest groups on the left and their champions in the Senate, there is nothing sacrosanct about the filibuster of nominees - regardless of the Mr. Smith Goes to Washington imagery Democrats now conjure in support of filibuster rules, the same rules they once called "legislative piracy." Our founders did not use filibusters. In fact, for the first several Congresses (from 1789 to 1806), a majority of senators always had the power to bring debate to a close (cloture) by a majority vote. |
This is truly a very, very important issue. It has vital constitutional ramifications.
International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 854 85.4%
Post Date: 21st May, 2005 - 11:37am / Post ID: #
NOTE: News [?]
Way Republican Balances and Checks
EDITORIAL: A LOT OF FILIBUSTER NOISE
Cultural buzzwords are at the heart of the debate over the filibustering of judicial nominees in the Senate. Like pesky mosquitoes, they buzz and nip around the edges of the issue with a noise that keeps people from hearing clearly.
Ref. https://deseretnews.com/dn/view/1%2C1249%2C...35484%2C00.html
Checks & Balances vs Republican Way?
Checks and balances doesn't mean preventing one party to have all the power. It means preventing one portion of the government from having all the power. We vote for our representatives. If the majority are republican or democrat it is because the voters choose to make it that way.
Checks and balances means judges don't get to make laws, and the president doesn't have total control. Congress and the House get to pass laws, president signs or vetos and judges inforce and ensure constitutionality of those laws. That is checks and balances.
I think the filibuster should be outlawed.
International Level: Diplomat / Political Participation: 320 32%
Post Date: 22nd May, 2005 - 12:08pm / Post ID: #
Checks & Balances Republican Way
The reality of all this is that both parties only want things their way. The party in minority filibusters because they want it their way. Republicans and Democrats want it their own way and usually will do anything they can to get it. If the republicans where in minority and against a democratic president, congress, and house, there is ZERO doubt in my mind that they would do something similar. It ensures that the minority can still be heard and heeded, even if it is time consuming and annoying.
Checks & Balances Republican Way Politics Business Civil & History
| QUOTE |
| If the republicans where in minority and against a democratic president, congress, and house, there is ZERO doubt in my mind that they would do something similar. |
Except that the Republicans were in the minority for a very long time and never did this. Even under Bill Clinton's first two years, the Republicans carried out real debate, but never tried to just obstruct the nominations. Nor did they carry out deliberate, premeditated character assassinations on them, as the Democrats have done with Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, and John Bolton.
Filibusters and character assassinations are NOT appropriate in the Senate advice and consent role.
International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 854 85.4%
TOPIC: Checks & Balances vs Republican Way?