The Democrat members of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee have staged unprecedented filibusters inorder to obstruct President Bush\'s Judicial Nominees. For example, Miguel Estrada earned a \"well qualified\" rating by the American Bar Association, its highest rating, he graduated magna cum laude from Columbia University and Harvard Law School, and he would be the first Hispanic to sit on this court. Democrat senators claim that Estrada refused to answer questions about his record and constitutional views, and that his attempts to evade scrutiny on these issues prevented the Senate from fulfilling its constitutional responsibility to \"advise and consent\" to this judicial nomination. But, only two of 10 Judiciary Committee Democrats exercised their right to submit written questions to Estrada. Almost no questions were asked, and none were answered. In fact, the true reasons for these specious Democrat filibusters are on the grounds of ideology. The Democrats choose to filibuster President Bush\'s judicial nominees because they are conservatives, not because they are unqualified or won\'t answers questions. Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist Paper 76 that the Senate\'s role is to refuse nominations only for \"special and strong reasons\" having to do with \"unfit characters.\" According to George Will (\"A judge well worth the fight\", 2/27/03), if the Senate rules, exploited by an anticonstitutional minority, are allowed to trump the Constitution\'s text and two centuries of practice, the Senate\'s power to consent to judicial nominations will have become a Senate right to require a 60-vote supermajority for confirmations. By thus nullifying the president\'s power to shape the judiciary, the Democrat Party will wield a presidential power without having won a presidential election. Please help stop the Democrat filibusters against President Bush\'s judicial nominees, who all deserve an up-and-down vote by the full Senate. Thank you. This signed petition will be sent to all the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee: Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE) Sen. Herbert Kohl (D-WI) Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) Please feel free to write your Senator and forward this ipetition to a friend. Thank you.
No comments yet.join the discussion
dmnv wmqljvxd dmnv wmqljvxd, Netherlands7 years ago State: AL
Comments: uxgir xlfut ulskq sxajfleuh fxhpbimwu saqzn lfribqvn
ed Patterson, United States10 years ago State: AL
Comments: A minority of this country does not have the right to violate the wishes of the majority. "Majority rules" is the foundation of our law and the consititution. ideology is not constitutional grounds to determine if judicial nominees are suitable. a super majority vote on presidentual nominees is a power grab and the filibusters are illegal in my opinion. back to the constitution and majority rule. stop all judicial appointee filibusters.
Justin McCann, United States10 years ago State: CT
Comments: If a simple majority is not the manner by which judges are to be Constitutionally appointed, wouldn't the framers have inserted "provided two thirds of the Senators present concur" after the statement regarding the appointment of judges Why would they be so explicit regarding Treaties and be so otherwise sloppy, or at least not thorough, as to exclude similar language, regarding the appointment of judges, Ambassadors, etc... I think it further clarified that they did not intend the appointment of judges to be subject to a supermajority by virtue of the inclusion of "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate," in both clauses. That they duplicated this statement, but did not do the same with "provided two thirds of the Senators present concur", clarifies the non-mutual intent of each clause.
There are no highlights yet.