Friday, April 29, 2005


Here is a story about the proposal Senator Frist made yesterday with respect to the Democrat tactic of filibustering judicial appointments. Of course, the public response by Democrats was N-O.
"This has never been about the length of debate," Mr. Reid said. Rather, it's about constitutional principle of sharing power with the minority in the Senate, he said."
There is a "constitutional principle of sharing power with the minority in the Senate?" Really? I always thought the filibuster resulted from Senate rules. I've been looking through my copy of the Constitution today but so far I can find no reference, direct or remote, to sharing power with a Senate minority. Certainly the part of the Constitution that says the Senate has the power of "advice and consent" with respect to judicial appointments makes no reference to Senate minorities.

And, there is Senator Salazar's contribution to the filibuster flap which includes referring to someone as the "antichrist." Yesterday, Salazar apologized for the antichrist comment. A spokesman for Senator Salazar also made an effort to clarify his position on the filibuster tactic.
"'He said during the campaign that he would prefer an up-or-down vote, but now that Republicans are talking about breaking the rules, he takes issue with that,' Salazar spokesman Cody Wertz said."
I believe it is correct that as a candidate Senator Salazar said judicial appointments should get Senate floor votes, but less than half a year into his tenure as a Senator he has apparently decided his campaign position is no longer correct. Can anyone say "integrity?" I don't think this clarification about rule breaking makes any sense at all. If Republicans decide to pursue the "constitutional option" this will not be breaking the rules. My understanding is that they would be following precisely the rules of the Senate that cause rules to be changed.

Speaking of rules changes, the Wall Street Journal discusses a rule that cries out to be changed. Senate practice apparently allows a single Senator to "veto" any appointment. Wow. The Senate's Constitutional power includes "advice and consent," and the Senate allows one Senator a veto over the Constitutional power of the President? What's up with that?

No comments: