Topics for debate:

1. Should the Advise and Consent by the Senate for Judges be constitutionally rased to 2/3 or 3/5? Why or why not?
2. If so for #1, should it raised to 2/3 or 3/5? Why?
3. What are the pros and cons of rasing it to 2/3 or 3/5, respectively?

I can't see such a rule doing anything but clogging things up badly. Unless the legislature was overwhelmingly dominated by one party, it would be difficult to get a 3/5 vote on any candidate who was even slightly controversial. (It would be nice if candidates for judgeships were just superb jurists rather than politicians, but I suppose that's an impossible utopian dream.)

Even though I am one of the "assorted kooks" noted here (the Democratic Party being way too conservative for me) I favor a straight up and down vote on candidates for judicial office. It may be overly optimistic of me, but I would hope that the seriousness of judgeship -- its dignity and gravitas -- would tend to tone down the excesses of ideologues. Its varying members over the years may have been Left, Right, or Center, but it seems to me that the Supreme Court has generally acted sanely during its long history (with a few exceptions, depending on your point of view, of course, but the most extreme of these tend to be corrected over time.)

The current system for selecting federal judges works pretty well. Let's leave it alone.

First before attempting to answer the question here is some ground rules that are found in concrete. One the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land. The Constitution controls how our government operates and finally there is plainly spelled out two ways in which the Constitution can be modified or changed.

The Constitution is a fluid document meaning it can change with the times and technology. The Constitution specifies that the President chooses his nominees and in this case it is for the court. The Senate must advice and Consent the choice. The history of the advice and consent phrase morphed quickly into one of which the Senate by simple majority vote approved or disapproved a nominee. Therefore advice and consent can only be given by a vote. But, what kind of vote, simple majority or super majority? The Constitution clearly specifies where a Super Majority vote is required and advice and consent is not specified as one of these.

So what about this filibustering Senate rule and debating issues and how does the minority subject itself on the majority? These are important questions to be looked at. The Senate has the right to write rules as it sees fit to run its body in its quest to legislate; this is also in the Constitution. So the Senate over the years has created a rule that allows a Senator or Senators to control the debate and talk a measure to death. In recent years the filibuster can be mustered simply by the opposing side saying O.K. we are filibustering that item and the Senate then says O.K. and moves on to other business, putting that piece of legislation on hold. That is what has been happing with the current judicial nominees for over four years.

So how does Congress and our government rectify when a Senate rule violates the Constitution? Well, I don’t know. I have never seen this happen before. But my common sense would say that a rule couldn’t violate a specified clause of the Constitution even when the Constitution specifies that the governing body can create whatever rules it sees fit to do its business. I would surmise that the advice and consent clause of the Constitution means that the congress must have a vote one way or another on the nominee. Some opponents say no they are advising and consenting when they are discussing the nomination on the floor. Well, lets examine this for a moment. First they are not debating or employing the filibuster as has traditionally been established. Second, is debate advice and consent? I would argue no it is not. The Senate does not advice the President through its debate. The President does not have any input in what a Senator pro or con has to say. They take positions as representatives of their respective states and debate issues. In doing so the task of the Minority is to convince the Majority to change its mind and the majority to remain stead fast in its decision. Is debate consent? I again say no. Consent is the vote, yes or no, up or down, approve or disapprove.

Therefore the Senate is violating its Constitutional mandate by not advising and Consenting to the President on a nominee. Therefore any Senate rule that violates the Constitution is also in violation of the Constitution.

Some side points: Are these nominees extreme and the minority justified in there filibuster? The answer is that is up to what the definition of extreme is? Extreme is different for each Senator to decide. But our system of government runs on majority rule that is why it is important to win elections. The majority will decide what the definition of extreme is and by a vote will decide if a nominee is qualified to sit on the court. The opposition will scream that this is legislation by the extreme Republicans but the truth is that it is governance by the majority party. If the minority party or a single Senator thinks that a nominee is bad, extreme, or unqualified they can convince the necessary amount of other Senators to their position and vote.

The traditional standard that was employed in the past is the ABA standard of approval or disapproval. All of these nominees are qualified and approved by the ABA. So why is this really going on? Two reasons both related. The democrats did not pass through the legislative route; abortions instead used the activist Supreme Court to invent a right of privacy that is not found in the Constitution. Roe v Wade was decided and made abortions legal in the United States. They have since then needed to protect that decision by majority vote of that court. But they are no longer in the position of majority party and they cannot stop these lower court nominees from ultimately sitting on the Supreme Court and maybe returning to the true intent of the Constitution. This is why judicial activism is so wrong. There is no check or balance on this Supreme Court in changing rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If the country is so pro abortion why not change the Constitution with an amendment allowing it? The answer is simple the country is not pro-abortion.

What about the traditions and practices that have been employed by the Senate since its inception? The Senate history on Filibusters and Nominations can be found on the Senate’s homepage. But it boils down to this, the Republicans under Clinton blocked nominations in committees and the democrats while controlling the Senate did it to the President. Once in the history of this country a filibuster was instituted under LBJ to block a Supreme Court Justice rising to Chief Justice. This nomination was withdrawn and within a year that same nominee resigned the court.

So is the Filibuster an extreme use of minority power in judicial nominees? I would say that it is because it has never been used before the last congress. I have also heard the Minority leader Reed state that it is the minorities right to hold up these nominees and this process the filibuster is protected in the Constitution. The truth is that the filibuster is not in the Constitution and when a parliamentary rule violates the Constitution that rule must be shut down. Can the Minority rule the Majority through the filibuster? The answer is it depends if the majority is willing to use the power it has available to it to shut down the tyranny of the minority and allow the rights of the people to have their business to go forward. We have elections for a reason and we have a party consistently loosing for a reason. I would further remind all the people on the other side of this debate that the Democrats take two major chances here both of which are political. First they may someday be in the majority and have this come back to bite them and Second the American public may see them as being obstructionists and punish them at the polls see Tom Daschle the former Minority leader. Again politically the Republicans are in a better position here then the Democrats. One final point, the Dems leader has been saying the Republicans would be violating the Constitution if they use this rule change process, but actually, the mechanics to change this Senate rule would require that the Majority party to rule the filibuster as out of order and a simple majority vote to confirm this would result in the Majority ruling the Senate and the minority having the status relegated to the minority as the People in the last election required.

Not true: the Constitution specifies no time limit for advice and consent.


Not true: the ABA issued a Q/NQ rating for Justice Brown.



Unless you are splitting hairs, your last sentence contradicts your paragraph.


That is an overly simplistic phrasing that obscures the issues of substance.

I don’t agree. If you follow this legislature drama to its logical conclusion what do you find? The minority controls the debate forever and the vacancies do not get filled and the people’s business does not get done. This again goes to your original comment, as the Constitution does not set a time limit for debate but it does specifies that the Senate would Advise and Consent and that requires a vote. No vote no Consent and this is in violation to the Senates obligation under the Constitution. It seems to me that the founding fathers expected debate but also expected an up or down vote. Further why win an election if you can thwart the will of the majority through a non-constitutional measure called a filibuster. The Senate may find itself a lot more like the House if it continues on this path of obstructing the majority. The Dems have lost how many elections since 1994? Many of them due to their minority tactics in which the mainstream has concluded have cost the majority the ability to do the peoples business. There is always another election in 2006.

At which point you inject your own personal notion of common sense into the debate. My common sense says that refusing to act is just as much a Senatorial perogative as acting. And at this point, our disagreement has degenerated into a demolition derby of opinions.



I disagree, but that's another topic that I started to discuss exactly this issue. Let's take it up there.


Not true: the filibuster was used against Abe Fortas and has been used many times against non-judicial nominees, by both Republicans and Democrats.




If that happens, then the people will throw the rascals out in the next election. That's how we correct a great many problems in this Republic. Changing longstanding traditions is not the best way.

I agree with you that the voters will ultimately decide this at the polls. I have already discussed this in the last post. However we end up at the point of discussing what is meant by Advise and Consent. I am curious what you consider that to mean. Further I wonder what your opinion based on Senatorial history of the way the Senate has conducted its advice and consent role is. Is this action by the minority extremely out of the historical precedent and extreme in holding up qualified majority supported nominations.

What will ultimately happen and why the Democrats will be hung out to dry by the rules and the voters. I believe that Frisk will pull the Constitution rule and the Senate will vote on each and every one of these nominations. They all will be passed on at least party lines and possibly with some support by individual Democrats. Then the Democrats will try to grind the legislation to a halt and the Republicans will use this in the mid term elections to hammer the Democrats. The Senate could be held by the Republicans in the last two years of Bush’s administration with a 60 vote super majority and then if you were worried about a few judges then watch out the congress will pass a lot of legislation that liberals will absolutely find sickening.

This brings me full circle it is not my opinion as to what the Constitution says but what has by tradition and through standing and precedent been. This again brings me to my original post and the point is simple the filibuster of the nominations is unconstitutional and therefore needs to stop. It will take the Majority to end this parade of wimpy style leadership and for them to get these people up for a vote. Then lets move ahead with other business that can help this country.

An interesting concept but I think that it is so far from current practice as to be a futile point to discuss.


This is sophistry. The differentiation you make is without logical significance. Justice Fortas' nomination was killed by threat of filibuster if not filibuster itself.


No, I do not disagree with the ABA system. You stated that the ABA had rated her as qualified and the ABA system rated her a Q/NQ. That's not the same thing.


"Advice and consent" means that the Senate offers its advice on the nominees and consents to their appointments. If the Senate does not give its consent -- for any reason -- then the consent does not exist and the nominee has not been confirmed.


It is not historically correct that the Senate has never had filibusters over Presidential appointments. There have been plenty of filibusters, by both Democrats and Republicans, of Presidential appointments.


Perhaps, perhaps not. The polls show that about 40% of the public doesn't care about the issue, and that a strong majority of the remainder are opposed to the nuclear option and think that the Republicans are in the wrong here.



You have yet to substantiate your claim that the filibuster is unconstitutional, and a great many legal scholars disagree with you. This is a political fight, not a constitutional fight.

You seem not to consider the long tradition of how the Senate has conducted itself over the years. The Filibuster is not a constitutional animal but instead a creation of a Southern White Democrat named Clay in 1841. Further the Filibuster is a Senate rule and as rules go they change. The original point of this discussion was whether the filibuster requires a super majority to shut it down or a simple majority. I have demonstrated that under the Constitution, as today written the filibuster of nominations are unconstitutional. Since you seem to have disregarded my original argument here it is in a nutshell. First the constitution specifies where a super majority is needed. Second the advice and consent clause does not direct a super majority therefore by Senate tradition and usage the Senate has always used a simple majority to vote on nominations. The filibuster is a creation of the Senate in 1841 and was never meant to be used on nominations. Therefore the use of such a legislative tool for a nominating vote would be unconstitutional. Now throw into the mix that the Senate by the constitution may vote how it chooses to run its chamber with what rules it chooses to implement and now you have the simple conflict between a senate rule and the advice and consent clause. I have maintained that the advice and consent clause of the constitution would take precedent over a conflicting senate rule because to allow an endless debate on nominations would ultimately if carried to its logical conclusion shut down the Judiciary. You have posted in response a good discussion as to what is advice and consent. This is where I think you I have a major disagreement as I look to the Senate and how they conducted themselves Since their conception for a definition of advice and consent. The Senate has long held that once a candidate is deemed qualified from committee they are submitted to the floor to be debated by the whole chamber and then voted on. This is the regular way the Senate conducts business. You have thrown in Fortus and claimed that the Republicans first filibustered the nomination and now you say they threatened to filibuster his nomination. But what you forget is what the definition of a filibuster is. The definition states that the Senator(s) who filibusters talks the subject to death. Now I have no problem with both sides espousing language to try to convince the other side to back down and I have no problem with debate which is what Fortus was a debate of his nomination. What I have a problem is with a four-year debate, which I call a filibuster. Advice and consent to me, and if you can quote experts to disagree please do I would welcome their lame attempt at it, is debate of the nomination and then a vote which is the consent. If the nomination fails then the Senate as told the President that the candidate is unqualified and if they agree they have said they are qualified. So lets look for a moment at this concept you have put forward that the minority may filibuster a nomination and that is their advice and consent. If what you have stated is true where do the majority held Senators get to advice and consent on the nomination. They are not allowed to by a Senate rule. I don’t think so. My Senator has as much right to vote on the nomination as any other Senator. The fact that the minority will not allow such a vote proves that they cannot compete on the playing field of ideas but must obstruct the process. This has happen several times in the past and the voters who are the ultimate judges here do vote the bums out. Say hi to good old minority leader Daschle up there in North Dakota.

So you are hung up on the Brown ABA rating but you seem to misunderstand what I thought was clear the rating for her is MAJORITY QUALIFIED that is the Q you bring out and the NQ is the Minority unqualified. She still has a qualified rating… This still does not detract from her qualifications from the Senatorial Judiciary committee recommendation she should go to the floor for a vote. You seem to want argue her qualifications and that is nether the point of this discussion. She is as well as all the nominations in question ABA qualified… You call it something less but still does not change the fact that she is ABA qualified.

You state that your definition of Advice and Consent is "Advice and consent" means that the Senate offers its advice on the nominees and consents to their appointments. If the Senate does not give its consent -- for any reason -- then the consent does not exist and the nominee has not been confirmed.” And by your own definition the Senate must vote or how do they give or deny consent? The President is not a mind reader and neither are the writers of the Constitution Consent has always meant a vote and always will mean a vote and for the simple purpose of government efficiency the advice and consent clause would take precedent over the senate rules.

Filibustering Presidential nominations seem to be common place so name a few and back them up with both Democratic and Republican Presidents for I can’t think of none. Vigorous long debate but always they have ended up with a vote. Held up in committee or before the floor I would agree but not when a nomination gets to the floor they always get a vote. If I am wrong please give me examples.

As far as Polls go that is really silly for the last poll I saw showed by a 68 to 25% gap the American public wants the nominees to get a up or down vote. Yes some people have no clue but for those that do it only makes logical sense that the get the vote.

If the minority can’t defeat the nomination, which they claim is extreme, maybe the nomination is not extreme but the minority is. What a concept the Dems extreme. I haven’t heard that in a while.

I totally disagree with you that this is a political fight not a Constitutional one. You have shaped it as a political fight but it really is more simple then you are allowing it to be played out. The Constitution is clear but the Dems are not working inside the Constitution. They seem to have stumbled on a Senate rule for their extreme and bizarre Constitutional mandate and yet they complain when those same rules are used to shut them down. How hypocritical a body they are.

They claim they will grind the Senate’s business to a crawl or halt. I say do it and then the American voter can reduce them to less then the 45 that are there. Maybe Reed can confer what to do with his free time with Daschle after he is voted out of office.

That's not an argument for constitutionality.



Since you've already decided that it's got to be lame, there's not much point in discussing it, is there?


You are re-wording the ABA rating. The official ABA rating is Q/NQ. You are translating that as "qualified'. That's not what it says.

Independent Thinker is correct. According to the ABA's Standing Committee on the Judicary, they issue the following ratings......



Thus, Justice Brown has been rated "Qualified" by the ABA. (For whatever that's worth).

Thanks for bringing this up. I was unaware of this further explanation of the ABA ratings. I stand corrected.

I have maintained that the advice and consent clause of the constitution would take precedent over a conflicting senate rule because to allow an endless debate on nominations would ultimately if carried to its logical conclusion shut down the Judiciary.

You claim this argument is not constitutional.

Lets take a moment and explore this. I of course disagree and this is why. First I think we both would agree that the matter would have to be decided by the Supreme Court. The court often has to decide law that is conflicting. They do it based on various reasoning, one would be similar is: the allowance of breaking or an infringement of a persons or states rights for the greater good. I am making the case here that the greater good would be for the Advice and Consent clause to take precedent over a Senate rule which both are Constitutional on their face but that both conflict and I suggest to you that one of the tests the court will apply is which will do the greatest harm and which will lead to the greatest good. Since a filibuster by definition is talking a matter to infiniteness I suggest that the court would go with requiring a vote. The reason as I have stated before is that the court would presume that the nomination would remain in debate forever (even though this may not be true in theory it would be) and this would result in an endless amount of vacancies on the court even the Supreme Court. Our system would not stand for this and the court would step in and require the Advice and Consent clause to require a vote on the Senate floor.

You can disagree but I would like to see your reasoned and logical explanations.

You further have stated that you can give me examples of where the Dems and the Repubs have held up nominations on the floor of the Senate with a filibuster and I have asked when. Humor and educate me for I cannot think of a single time that we have not already discussed. Nominations have been held up in committee and have been withdrawn with vigorous debate but I stand by my original claim that the Senate Dems are taking unprecedented action by filibustering a nomination(s). Since you cannot or choose not to give me examples to the contrary I would presuppose that I win this point.

This is a major point as well. For if their has been no other times where filibusters have been used this way the Constitutional or Nuclear option Frisk will deploy next Tuesday becomes not only important but also shows how the filibuster is being misused and the vote to change the Senate rules becomes the more righteous course of action.

I asked the following question in my post earlier under the discussion of the Advice and Consent clause “And by your own definition the Senate must vote or how do they give or deny consent?” I was wondering under this context how you would answer this. Further I would like to know if your claim of a filibuster allowed nomination(s) by a minority of Senators is advice and consent how do you justified the minority denying any of the other Senators the right to fulfill their Constitutional mandate of advice and consent and vote.

I would also like to know since you are a proponent of the filibuster rule to thwart the majority how do you justify the fact that the people have already voted for their representatives and expect a majority to rule.

My opinion: The minority by implementing the filibuster against nominations is not only unconstitutional but tyranny in its worst form for it has denied the majority the right to carry out their duties under the constitution and Tyranny against the majority of the voters.

Your case is built on an absurd extrapolation in which an obstreperous minority blocks confirmation of every single judge nominated by the President, and the President refuses to nominate alternatives. Such is nowhere near the case; the Democrats have approved the great majority of the President's nominations. If the Democrats choose to obstruct the confirmation of a few justices, then no constitutional crisis arises and the Supreme Court would not perceive any need to intrude into a political fight.


OK, here's one:




Your presupposition was premature -- and please, the notion of winning and losing belongs in the schoolyard, not in reasoned discussion among mature adults.



Please restate your question in ungarbled form.


I don't need to justify the fact that the people have already voted for their representatives. And "the people" most certainly do not expect a majority to rule. This is a republic, not a democracy.


Use of supermajorities is a well-established component of republican government, and the matter is for the Senate to decide in setting its rules. Whether the Senate should accept a supermajority rule on cloture votes is a political question, not a legal one.

LBJ didn't withdraw Fortas until the Senate failed to invoke cloture. Let's put that aside for the moment. If you're going to suggest a filibuster didn't really take place in Fortas's case because LBJ eventually withdrew him, never mind Frist leading a filibuster against Clinton's Paez to the 9th, you may as well also suggest Senator Hatch's blue-slip procedure enabling anonymous Senators to hold up dozens of Clinton nominees in committee and the seven judges Bush II renominated were never filibustered either because in almost every case from 1996 to the present the Senate hasn't failed to invoke cloture. Both the blue-slip procedure (Republicans) and the mere threat of a filibuster (Democrats) bypass cloture. Therefore, no filibuster.

That, of course, would render this debate moot, and calling it a filibuster only under certain circumstances is a transparent attempt to have a cake and eat it.

Filibuster Derails Supreme Court Appointment
THE JOURNAL OF APPELLATE PRACTICE AND PROCESS
Filibustering the Truth

What are the pros and cons of rasing it to 2/3 or 3/5, respectively?

Some say it would force the president to dig for moderate candidates. This is righting a wrong that doesn't start with the Constitution itself, though. One fraction is as good as another as long as that fraction remains the same for a lengthy period of time for it to have meaningful significance and provide the one time majority party the opportunity to regret it.

A numbers game won't redress the petty game of revenge southern Democrats initiated over the 1967 CVA, picked up by Reagan with the creation of the President’s Committee on Federal Judicial Selection with the goal of screening potential nominees to "choose people of a certain judicial philosophy," and presently holding state judges accountable to the people by making them run for office. Instead of neutralizing the judiciary we've worked hard at politicizing it when we don't agree with legislation or opinions.

I don't think the planet will cease turning if Frist has enough votes for the nuclear option... so long as the majority cannot escape its own rules by reintroducing the blue-slip procedure afterward.

[quote=Lesly,May 20 2005, 01:05 PM]
[quote=Independent Thinker,May 20 2005, 10:37 AM]You further have stated that you can give me examples of where the Dems and the Repubs have held up nominations on the floor of the Senate with a filibuster and I have asked when. Humor and educate me for I cannot think of a single time that we have not already discussed. Nominations have been held up in committee and have been withdrawn with vigorous debate but I stand by my original claim that the Senate Dems are taking unprecedented action by filibustering a nomination(s). Since you cannot or choose not to give me examples to the contrary I would presuppose that I win this point.[/quote]

LBJ didn't withdraw Fortas until the Senate failed to invoke cloture. Let's put that aside for the moment. If you're going to suggest a filibuster didn't really take place in Fortas's case because LBJ eventually withdrew him, never mind Frist leading a filibuster against Clinton's Paez to the 9th, you may as well also suggest Senator Hatch's blue-slip procedure enabling anonymous Senators to hold up dozens of Clinton nominees in committee and the seven judges Bush II renominated were never filibustered either because in almost every case from 1996 to the present the Senate hasn't failed to invoke cloture. Both the blue-slip procedure (Republicans) and the mere threat of a filibuster (Democrats) bypass cloture. Therefore, no filibuster.

That, of course, would render this debate moot, and calling it a filibuster only under certain circumstances is a transparent attempt to have a cake and eat it.

We seem to be going around in circles. If you look up the definition of a filibuster [The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition Edited by E.D. Hirsch, Jr., Joseph F. Kett, and James Trefil. Copyright © 2002 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin.] states: A strategy employed in the United States Senate, whereby a minority can delay a vote on proposed legislation by making long speeches or introducing irrelevant issues. A successful filibuster can force withdrawal of a bill. Filibusters can be ended only by cloture. You have stated that LBJ didn’t withdrawal Fortas till the cloture vote but still the withdrawal was made. The debate was ended. I suggest that the fact that a few senators hold the floor for a short period of time in debate not a filibuster under the above definition. By definition the debate must continue for an infinite time. This is why my claim that what is currently going in the Senate is not even a true filibuster but a perversion by the minority to control the agenda of the majority, but setting this aside for a moment and continuing to discus Paez of the 9th circuit, he got his vote and today sits on the famous overly overturned 9th circuit court of Appeals. The blue slips you talk about have had a long tradition in the senate. If a home state senator of a nominee would blue slip his own nominee then the committee would not vote them out of the committee. Don’t play politics claiming that one side does when both do. This however is not a filibuster and again you have failed to show me a true filibuster nomination where a minority has held up the nomination from getting a floor vote. Fortas is the closest and he was a poor choice. LBJ recognized this and pulled him. If you have a different definition of the filibuster again educate me I sometimes fail to understand these great weighty issues and participate in forums like this to be educated. Further all of the current crop of nominees have had cloture votes and have failed.

But you have failed to answer my questions from the previous post.

You wrote “…picked up by Reagan with the creation of the President’s Committee on Federal Judicial Selection with the goal of screening potential nominees to "choose people of a certain judicial philosophy,"
Are you suggesting that the President should not screen his picks for the judicial nominations he will be making?

This is another one of those ‘I can not believe the minority Dems in that they have the edacity to think’ that the minority party should not only sit in and help the President pick nominees that they want but to veto his choices. I wonder if they realize they lost the election on more then one occasion and that they are stepping on the power granted to the President under the Constitution. (Why should they let they old paper get in the way of them being able to manipulate the process).

A definition of the original filibuster is fine and well but the filibuster hasn’t been carried out in a true sense for the last decade or longer, stopping everything from judicial appointments to labor legislation without infinite debate. Without the blue-slip procedure Frist would’ve been unable to block Paez’s nomination for 3 1/2 years. And along with the filibuster the blue-slip procedure has changed as well. It wasn’t until the “last part of the twentieth century” that a negative blue-slip “would withhold a nominee from advancing to a Senate floor vote.”



The filibuster has been “perverted” for some time. The blue-slip procedure has been perverted for some time. The sentence I bolded in your quote is where your argument falls apart. Had the blue-slip procedure rules remain unchanged the Democrats wouldn’t have had to resort to the filibuster.

Currently there are 18 Senators on the Judiciary Committee. When you invoke “advice and consent” does that mean the 18 on the committee speak for the other 82?



My quote above is part of an answer to the debate question What are the pros and cons of rasing it to 2/3 or 3/5, respectively? What I wrote above the debate question is a direct response to your quote, which I disagree with.

But since you asked the president can choose any nominee he wants. The president is not guaranteed their nominee will receive a favorable Senate vote. The president would not pass nominees through liberal/conservative filters, institutionalize the selection process, and legitimize half the population’s concerns over judicial appointments by adding another layer of politics if I had my way.



I think you mean audacity. Kennedy is looking a little port around the middle these days but come on dude. It’s not my whole party.

Before you respond with another “I cannot believe” line, think about what you’re saying and ask yourself if it applies to you as well, if not more than me.