Friday, May 13, 2005
"Nuclear Option"
As Democrats and the MSM tell us of the long hallowed tradition of the filibuster against judicial appointees, certain simple questions come to mind.
Why can the defenders of the filibuster only point to the "filibuster" of Abe Fortas in 1968 as precedent? Supporters of the "nuclear option" argue that Fortas lacked majority support to win confirmation. In fact, the issues that led to opposition to his promotion to Chief Justice were so serious that they ultimately led to his resignation from the Supreme Court.
If filibustering of judicial nominees were in the hallowed tradition of the Senate, more than one debatable precedent could surely be offered. Furthermore, the lack of a filibuster of Clarence Thomas eloquently refutes the existence of such a "tradition."
With the massive outcry against his nomination and the close confirmation vote of 52-48, surely his opponents would have filibustered the nomination if, in fact, the tradition had been recognized at the time.
While the present rules of the Senate permit a filibuster of judicial nominees, the tradition of the Senate does not.
Why can the defenders of the filibuster only point to the "filibuster" of Abe Fortas in 1968 as precedent? Supporters of the "nuclear option" argue that Fortas lacked majority support to win confirmation. In fact, the issues that led to opposition to his promotion to Chief Justice were so serious that they ultimately led to his resignation from the Supreme Court.
If filibustering of judicial nominees were in the hallowed tradition of the Senate, more than one debatable precedent could surely be offered. Furthermore, the lack of a filibuster of Clarence Thomas eloquently refutes the existence of such a "tradition."
With the massive outcry against his nomination and the close confirmation vote of 52-48, surely his opponents would have filibustered the nomination if, in fact, the tradition had been recognized at the time.
While the present rules of the Senate permit a filibuster of judicial nominees, the tradition of the Senate does not.
# posted by Thomas A. Becket : 1:11 PM
