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


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

Ring any bells yet?



The fact that the President cannot simply appoint whom he pleases should
have occured to somebody in the cabinet long before this. The difficulty
in getting approval is a sign of both extremism and lack of foresight.


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.


... 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!



... 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.


... 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? Anything about how debate must
be limited in duration or to majority party members? Anything about how
the President should expect the arm-twisters of his personal caucus to
convince the mainstream to go along?

Nope.

In other words, the burden has been on the Bush Administration to either
nominate appointees acceptable to the Congress... and by implication, to
the nation... or do whatever back-room dealing necessary to get them
passed without tying up the country's business.

They didn't.

It's another example of the short-sightedness & close-mindedness of the
Bush Administration IMHO.


... 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?

Better check with Tom Paine about that.

DSK