SwiftVets.com

[GIaunt]

With all the talk about Arlen Specter and the potential problems with Judicial nominees, rather that worry about who is the chairman of the committee, it is time for a meaningful change to the Senate rules...

Currently, the judicial committee can usurp the power of the entire Senate by preventing an appointee from making it to the floor of the Senate for a vote...

Also, on the Senate Floor, filibusters are used to prevent appointees from being voted on -- again, this is in violation of the Constitution....

So, We need to contact our Senators, not about Senator Spector, but about changing the Senate rules:

The judicial committee can take X number of days to investigate and interview judicial appointees... After that, they must send the name to the floor with their recommendations (OR, they may apply for a vote by the full Senate to be granted an extension - a vote that may not be filibustered)

AND
Judicial appointee votes on the floor of the Senate must happen within Y days of the committee sending the name and information to the floor of the Senate -- and this vote may not be prevented by filibuster....

(Of course, the republicans don't want this because they may not always have a majority..., but it is what the Constitution says...)

[Digger]

I think we should abide by the constitution in this matter. Should special circumstances befall, it can be disgussed in house and if necessary, submitted for referendum
_________________
Hey swifty, I'm with you, Just watch you don't get "Kerry'd away in the propwash

Sgt. Maj. Seamus D.D. MacNemi R.M.C. Ret.

[srmorton]

I know that the press keeps saying that some Republicans (like
McCain, for example) do not want to deprive the minority of their
right to filibuster, but that is not a right granted by the constitution.
It is part of the Senate rules and can be changed at the beginning
of any new session of Congress.

Several years ago, the Democrats did just that. They changed the
rules of the filibuster so that it is a farce rather than a filibuster in
the true sense of the word. The filibuster was designed so that the
rights of the minority were protected, so that their voices could be
heard during a true debate, and so that the majority could not just
"cram through" anything they wanted on the floor of the Senate
because they had the votes. The Dems made a mockery of it
when they changed the rules so that a filibuster is a filibuster in
name only. They are not required to hold the floor 24-7 until they
are able to bring the majority to their side or they "run out of gas".
Traditionally, those in the minority would have to have someone
in the well of the Senate speaking 24-7 or the majority could call
for a vote. The other Senators would get so tired of this that there
would finally be 60 votes to stop the filibuster and vote. Just going
back to this would cause the filibuster to operate as intended and
not as it presently does (as a tyranny of the minority).

The fact remains that judicial nominees who are supported by a
majoirty of the Senate should be confirmed and should NEVER
be subject to filibuster which requires them to have a 60 vote
majority. That is blatantly unconstitutional and no Republican
should agree to operate under that rule for another day, no matter
how they might be tempted to retaliate against a Democratic
president in the future. That causes the Senate to have the power
to play with the lives of the outstanding people that Bush has
nominated. Even if liberal judges are nominated in the future by
a Democratic president, they deserve to be considered on their
own merits and to be voted up or down by the entire Senate.
_________________
Susan R. Morton