|
juliaoceania -> RE: "Its in my handwriting" Kagan says (6/30/2010 1:08:44 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
quote:
ORIGINAL: juliaoceania
When we use these appointments as a way to gain political oneupmanship our country suffers and our business remains undone. I find this trend requiring super-majorities to get anything accomplished to be highly disturbing, making me think that they need to change the senate rules. The filibusterer was never intended to be used as a political tool to freeze the gears of government It is being abused. And the threat of it underlying every legislative agenda is tyranny of the minority over the will of the majority...
Since the role of the SCOTUS is to interpret the Constitution, it has fuck all to do with the will of the minority or the majority. Your sentiments may well apply to lawmaking, but not to SCOTUS appointments, where the only concern should be activism vs constructionism. If a nominee fails that test, then a filibuster is entirely appropriate.
Why did you cut out the first paragraph of my post....
quote:
There used to be an era where judges were appointed without being crucified in front of the senate for every little thing they have ever said and done... there was a time that unless there were ethical concerns justices would get through hearings with our elected officials treating them with respect and dignity.... our country is really going to hell in a handbasket if we are going to start putting forward the idea that these human beings are not allowed opinions. What we will get if we continue down this path is judges that are bereft of intellectual prowess and academic vigor
When we use these appointments as a way to gain political oneupmanship our country suffers and our business remains undone. I find this trend requiring super-majorities to get anything accomplished to be highly disturbing, making me think that they need to change the senate rules. The filibusterer was never intended to be used as a political tool to freeze the gears of government It is being abused. And the threat of it underlying every legislative agenda is tyranny of the minority over the will of the majority...
Perhaps now you can connect the thoughts that led to the second paragraph.... we USED to have respectful proceedings and hearings in our senate. Respect for the CONSTITUTIONAL power of appointing judges used to prevail in the higher congressional body otherwise known as "The Senate". In the last couple of decades we have seen a slow shift to disrespect for the CONSTITUTIONAL power of the president to appoint people who would interpret the constitution. The ugliness that has become senate confirmation hearings in which instead of helping the president fulfill HIS CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY. they use it as red meat to raise money with their donors... scaring them with dishonest rhetoric... your OP is an example of this. They are using the weapon of filibuster to bully the majority party, which represents the majority of the people in the USA. There was an election, republicans lost, they need to stop obstructing government
I highly doubt you were supportive of the democrats when they wanted a "full hearing" on Roberts... this is an example of something I call hypocrisy. Unless one can demonstrate ethical concerns about whom the president selects, they need to get the fuck over it and appeal to more voters in the next election
|
|
|
|
