As a Christian, are supporting the Bush judicial nominations?
JohnC
has nominated many good judges, who are highly qualified and have
majority support from the people in the states they come from, and also
majority support in the US Senate. The democrats are obstructing the
good judges since they are afraid they might faithfully interpret the
US Constitution, instead of legislating from the bench as liberal
judges do. What they are afraid of is that they might lose their
liberal judges and the ability to inject liberalism into American
society when they can't do it at the ballot box, through their elected
officials. America rejects liberalism at the ballot box, so the left
imposes it through arrogant judges in black robes, by making new laws
when there is no public support for such laws. They should leave the
law making to our elected officials, the legislature and executive
branches.
So Don, Brent, other leftists at Calvin...do you support the
confirmation of Pricilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown, and the other
good people Bush has nominated? Or do you hide behind the leftist
rhetoric and the politics of personal destruction that the
obstructionists like Harry Reid, Chucky Shumer and Dick Durbin are
engaged in?
Here is some background on what the US Constitution and our founders
had to say about judges, if you are not up to speed:
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/forsythe200505170855.asp
Breaking the Rules
The Framers intended no more than a Senate majority to approve judges.
By Clarke D. Forsythe
The sharpening debate in the U.S. Senate over whether Democrats can
block President Bush's judicial nominations by filibuster raises the
basic question of the scope of the Senate's constitutional role to
give "Advice and Consent."
What does it mean for the Senate to give "Advice and Consent" for
federal judges?
Many people question whether changing the rules to allow only a
majority vote for confirmations is proper, or even constitutional.
However, the text of the Constitution, the record of the Constitutional
Convention of 1787, and Supreme Court decisions all concur to show that
the Constitution intended no more than a majority "vote" for the
Senate's "Advice and Consent" for judicial appointments.
The key provision is Article II, Section 2, called the Appointments
Clause: "The president shall have Power, by and with the Advice and
Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the
Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the
Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other
public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all
other Officers of the United States . . ."
There are three striking aspects of the Appointments Clause, all of
which are intentional and not accidental.
First, it is instructive if not definitive that the Appointments Clause
is contained as an explicit power in Article II, involving executive
powers, not in Article I, involving legislative powers.
Second, only a simple majority is required. The clause on the treaty
power, after mentioning "Advice and Consent," requires concurrence
by "two thirds of the Senators present." The clause on the
appointment of ambassadors and others, including Supreme Court justices
- by contrast - does not.
This is reinforced by the contrast found in several other provisions in
the Constitution where a "supermajority" vote is required. In
Article I, section 3, two-thirds (of members present) are required for
Senate conviction for impeachment. In Article I, section 5, two-thirds
are required to expel a member of either House. Article I, section 7
requires two-thirds for overriding a presidential veto. The fact that
the Constitution explicitly requires two-thirds in some contexts
indicates that the Senate's consent in Article II, section 2 is by
majority vote when no supermajority vote is required.
The general rule is that majorities govern in a legislative body,
unless another rule is expressly provided. Article I, section 5, for
example, provides that "a Majority of each [House] shall constitute a
Quorum to do Business."
More than a century ago, the Supreme Court stated in United States v.
Ballin, a unanimous decision, that "the general rule of all
parliamentary bodies is that, when a quorum is present, the act of a
majority of the quorum is the act of the body. This has been the rule
for all time, except so far as in any given case the terms of the
organic act under which the body is assembled have prescribed specific
limitations . . . No such limitation is found in the federal
constitution, and therefore the general law of such bodies obtains."
Third, the particular process in the Appointments Clause - of
presidential nomination and Senate "consent" by a majority - was
carefully considered by the Constitutional Convention. A number of
alternative processes for appointments were thoroughly considered -
and rejected - by the Constitutional Convention. And this
consideration took place over several months.
The Constitutional Convention considered at least three alternative
options to the final Appointments Clause: (1) placing the power in the
president alone, (2) in the legislature alone, (3) in the legislature
with the president's advice and consent.
On June 13, 1787, it was originally proposed that judges be
"appointed by the national Legislature," and that was rejected;
Madison objected and made the alternative motion that appointments be
made by the Senate, and that was at first approved. Madison
specifically proposed that a "supermajority" be required for
judicial appointments but this was rejected. On July 18, Nathaniel
Ghorum made the alternative motion "that the Judges be appointed by
the Executive with the advice & consent of the 2d branch," (following
on the practice in Massachusetts at that time). Finally, on Friday,
September 7, 1787, the Convention approved the final Appointments
Clause, making the president primary and the Senate (alone) secondary,
with a role of "advice and consent."
Obviously, this question is something that the Framers carefully
considered. The Constitution and Supreme Court decisions are quite
clear that only a majority is necessary for confirmation. Neither the
filibuster, nor a supermajority vote, is part of the Advice and Consent
role in the U.S. Constitution. Until the past four years, the Senate
never did otherwise. Changing the Senate rules to eliminate the
filibuster and only require a majority vote is not only constitutional
but fits with more than 200 years of American tradition.
tcm3...@gmail.com
Alberto Gonzalez, who is most decidedly a conservative, criticized Owen
several times for her tendency to create law (decide that people needed
to satisfy her personal take on the law) rather than interpret and
adjudicate it.
These last few justices have questionable professional backgrounds, and
the Democrats are more than justified to ask for other options.
JohnC
bi-partisan majority. I guess she was not so "extreme" after all. She
will make a great judge...she will interpret the law and not make new
law from the bench, which is the problem with so many liberal judges.
For example, with the Dred Scot case, the Supreme Court made the
mistake of saying black Americans are "non-persons" and therefore it
was OK to keep them as slaves.
With the Roe v. Wade decision, they made another mistake by ruling that
growing and pain-feeling American boys and girls in the womb are
"non-persons" and therefore we can kill them with no consequences.
I look forward to the day when that bad constitutional law is
overturned. I know you all as Christians are working towards that day
also. The best way to get there is to elect good Christian men like
Bush who will elect good judges who will not make these mistakes.
It also helps if we elect good men and women to congress who will not
filibuster and obstruct the good judges we need to overturn this odious
law.
40 million innocent baby boys and girls killed since this wrong-headed
law was made from the bench. Sure, we lost some good soldiers, around
1900 so far, who were fighting for the freedom and safety of America,
in a just war that was fully justified and authorized by the American
people and their representatives in congress (see "To the Leftists at
Calvin if you dispute that). But those 1900 also fought to liberate 50
million and to protect another 280 million Americans, if not all of the
free world.
So voting against Bush or protesting him when he visited Calvin, based
on faulty MichaelMoorisms, does not measure up to the massive deaths we
have seen by abortion.
Again I say, take the plank out of your own eye before you pay
attention to the speck of sawdust in your brother, President Bush's
eye.