CrimsonPhantom
CUSA Curator
Posts: 41,324
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 2371
I Root For: NM State
Location:
|
Another Dem Double Standard
Democratic Senator Who Thought Filibustering Judges Was Tyranny Of The Minority Now Supports Blocking Gorsuch
Quote:Guy wrote about Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) said in 2013, that filibustering judges was nothing more than tyranny of the minority. This is what he said:
I think what our role is, is to step out there, advise and consent, and if we don't believe the person's qualified, if there's some real serious problem, vote against them. You remember Bork. He wasn't filibustered. He was voted down, 58 votes against him. People like Scalia, everybody says, oh, well, there are going to be more Scalias. Scalia passed unanimously. Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court passed with just three votes against her, 96-3. So the issue really is advice and consent, not with supermajorities. Right now, we have the tyranny of the minority. And that's what we have taken care of."
Well, that was 2013 Udall, who’s been kidnapped by 2017 Udall. The New Mexico Senator now says he will hop on Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s inane ‘filibuster Gorsuch’ train and oppose his nomination (Albuquerque Journal):
Sen. Tom Udall will oppose the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court, saying that the 10th Circuit Appeals Court judge failed to answer key questions during his Senate confirmation hearings this week.
Udall’s announcement comes in the wake of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s call on Thursday to filibuster Gorsuch. Sen. Martin Heinrich, a New Mexico Democrat, has not yet publicly said whether her intends to vote for or against Gorsuch’s nomination.
“I have met with Judge Gorsuch, followed the hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee, and studied his record, and decided that I can’t support his confirmation,” Udall said in a statement provided to the Journal. “He failed to answer questions that are critical for me — his position on the rights of working mothers, whether women can choose their own health care decisions, LGBTQ rights, and dark money in our elections.”
Link
|
|
03-25-2017 03:53 PM |
|
stinkfist
nuts zongo's in the house
Posts: 68,369
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 6856
I Root For: Mustard Buzzards
Location: who knows?
|
RE: Another Dem Double Standard
wow another op-ed from an idiot that wrote, "....advice and consent...."
#eyetestfail
|
|
03-25-2017 04:12 PM |
|
Attackcoog
Moderator
Posts: 44,735
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
|
RE: Another Dem Double Standard
The Senate is really misusing the advice and consent clause anyway. If the judge is "qualified", then he supposed to be approved. Whether he a conservative of liberal is not a factor. Both sides are badly misusing the clause (the Republicans did it too---that's the only reason Trump gets to fill the position rather than Obama). That said, this extreme level of abuse really began with Bork. So, Dems can't really whine too loudly.
(This post was last modified: 03-25-2017 06:09 PM by Attackcoog.)
|
|
03-25-2017 06:07 PM |
|
tanqtonic
Hall of Famer
Posts: 19,111
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
|
RE: Another Dem Double Standard
(03-25-2017 06:07 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: The Senate is really misusing the advice and consent clause anyway. If the judge is "qualified", then he supposed to be approved. Whether he a conservative of liberal is not a factor. Both sides are badly misusing the clause (the Republicans did it too---that's the only reason Trump gets to fill the position rather than Obama). That said, this extreme level of abuse really began with Bork. So, Dems can't really whine too loudly.
From where do you conclude that the term "advice and consent" should *only* mean "qualified without regard to political viewpoint"? Not trying to be antagonistic, just curious.
To be honest, it is a phrase that has never been tested nor rendered a strictly legal definition, and your assertion seems awfully forceful given that.
|
|
03-25-2017 10:46 PM |
|
Paul M
American-American
Posts: 21,196
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 649
I Root For: OU
Location: Next to Boomer
|
RE: Another Dem Double Standard
(03-25-2017 06:07 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: The Senate is really misusing the advice and consent clause anyway. If the judge is "qualified", then he supposed to be approved. Whether he a conservative of liberal is not a factor. Both sides are badly misusing the clause (the Republicans did it too---that's the only reason Trump gets to fill the position rather than Obama). That said, this extreme level of abuse really began with Bork. So, Dems can't really whine too loudly.
Can't say as I agree with that in the slightest.
|
|
03-25-2017 11:46 PM |
|
LeFlâneur
Banned
Posts: 1,861
Joined: Jan 2017
I Root For: USC
Location:
|
RE: Another Dem Double Standard
The filibuster is a perversion of the Constitution as the Constitution provides for a simple majority for confirmation.
Invoking a 60 vote requirement is simply unconstitutional.
Therefore, invoking the nuclear option is actually the only acceptable thing for the Senate to do.
|
|
03-26-2017 10:33 AM |
|
tanqtonic
Hall of Famer
Posts: 19,111
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
|
RE: Another Dem Double Standard
(03-26-2017 10:33 AM)LeFlâneur Wrote: The filibuster is a perversion of the Constitution as the Constitution provides for a simple majority for confirmation.
Invoking a 60 vote requirement is simply unconstitutional.
Therefore, invoking the nuclear option is actually the only acceptable thing for the Senate to do.
Filibuster is neither constitutional nor unconstitutional. It is a Senate Rule, one that they are permitted as long as it doesnt conflict with another portion of the Constitution (i.e. there cannot be a Senate Rule that changes the numbers of Senators, age requirements, etc.)
In no way is it a "perversion" of the Constitution.
Would you specifically point out any language that *requires* 'a simple majority' for the "advice and consent" role, or, for that matter, any "requirement" that a simple majority vote is needed for *anything* outside of the 25th Amendment?
|
|
03-26-2017 11:34 AM |
|