The Jade Monkey

I didn't have a superiority complex until inferior people gave me one.

Location: San Antonio, Texas, United States


The best case against the democrat "filibuster"

Although I'm not too happy about the necessity of the "nuclear" option to end Democrat Dumbassery (just as I'm not happy about the necessity of a constitutional marriage amendement), I must support it. It's something that should not be necessary, but since the left has taken leave of all rational thought and position, it has become necessary. And I'd rather the spineless Republicans actually make them REALLY fillibuster, rather than the weak, bastardized version they have allowed the Dems to get away with. I also was concerned that changing the rules would preclude the Republicans from doing the same to a particularly objectionable nomination in the future. But as Sen. Frist said in his Justice Sunday appearance, if it is wrong for the Democrats to do it today, it would be wrong for the Republicans to do so tomorrow. This, I think, is essentially true, although I have so little trust that today's Democrat party will do anything but stand in partisan lockstep to push through a horrible judge should they (would to God it never happens!) ever regain the majority, that a rare filibuster might occasionally be desireable and legitimate (if not for the argument I'm about to relay below).

Anyways, as I was saying, the best casefor the unconstitutionality of the Democrats' actions (beside the obvious fact that they're whiny little babies that can't face the fact that they LOST and can't always get what they want, and realize the only way to push their agenda (as it has always been) is through judicial fiat) comes from a professor at Trinity University, here in San Antonio. I can't remember where I saw the quote now (I think it may have been CQ), but basically it boils down to this:

The filibuster of judicial nominations is indefensible because it is against an action originating in the co-equal executive branch of government. Just as the President cannot forever choose to do nothing about a bill that comes to his desk, holding it off in perpetuity - he must either sign it or veto it (or let it sit on his desk for 30 days at which time it becomes decided without any direct action on his part), and even should he veto it, the legislature can still override his veto - just so the legislature has no right to carry on this farce of a filibuster.

I think that's an incredibly powerful argument, which should end the debate for any reasonable person. I haven't seen it get much play (actually had never heard it before or since the one post, which I'm trying to find so I can link to give proper credit ETA here is a Weekly Standard piece by Bill Kristol that quotes from the Trinity professor in question, David A. Crockett. Pretty sure this is where I saw it, but also still fairly certain I was directed to it by CQ or another blog) so I thought I'd forward it.

Thankfully it looks like Frist has the votes to end this. And I have an idea to make the Dems look like (bigger) fools when he does...not sure I should talk about it yet, though.


Post a Comment

<< Home