DSK wrote:
The minority doesn't have the right to approve judicial appointments.
Never did.


No, but Congress... as a whole... does.

Ring any bells yet?

You're right, Congress as a whole does, and majority rules. So let
them vote and we can all get on with our lives.

The fact that the President cannot simply appoint whom he pleases should
have occured to somebody in the cabinet long before this.

And why can't the president appoint anybody he wants? Of course he
can. And if the Senate doesn't like the appointee, they can reject
him/her.



The intent of the filibuster is to delay a vote long enough to ensure
thorough debate.

Says who? The intent of a filibuster is to delay a vote.... period. The
intent can vary widely.

What other LEGITIMATE use of the filibuster is there than to ensure
thorough debate so that the minority view can be heard?

... Used correctly, it ensures that the minority view is
expressed fairly. A noble goal. The current use on these judicial
nominees is a disgusting misuse

Oh, I see. You swallow the whole package don't you... those evil
Democrats are perverting the noble use of the filibuster!

I didn't say the democrats are evil. They are playing the game just
like the republicans are. So I won't hold it against the democrats if
you don't hold it against the republicans.

The mere fact that the republicans hold the white house and both houses
of congress should satisfy you that their views are not on the fringe
of popular thought but are in the mainstream. The democrats have
completely lost their way and stand for nothing but opposing the
republicans. That's why they lost the elections.

... The concept of 'just vote dammit' is a rather simplistic way of
spinning the situation to make the far right wingnuts not look so bad.


Burying a specific piece of legislation in comittee is not against the
Constitution.

Of course not.

... There is no Constitutional responsibility to vote on
every piece of legislation ever put down on paper.

You could read that into the Constitution without stretching too much
IMHO. But that's not the way Congress does it's business.

Here, just as every other time you have invoked the Constitution, you
fail to give a reference. What are you talking about? How can you
"read that into" the Constitution?

... On the other hand,
the Senate is specifically required to "advise and consent" on
presidential judicial nominations. In my opinion, the intent of the
framers was NOT "advise and consent whenever you get around to it or
feel like it."


And do you see any wording that the Senate must promptly vote... and
nothing else... on judicial nominations?

No, only the common sense realization that vacancies on the bench
cannot go unfilled forever. We must have judges fill those spots. So
a system that can in theory and practice leave federal judicial spots
vacanct indefinitely, simply does not work and must be changed.

... A representative government empowered to take action even if it
by the slimest of majorities.

But it is NOT empowered to take action that is extremely offensive to
49% of it's constituents.


Sure it is.

Really?


Yes, really. Once again, I'll challenge you to reference any US law
that states otherwise. I have already given several examples from
history when Congress has opposed the wishes of a large minority and
several where they have opposed the wishes of the majority. You
snipped all of them. And what is your reference to Tom Paine about?