Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Mojo
The dems are holding up the <b>Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals</b> nominees. They are letting other minor judges pass. Federal circuit courts of appeals is one below SCOTUS.
The democrats are changing the rules, I’ll have to look it up. But basically the nominee only has to have the majority of the senate vote (51) and he/she is confirmed. But the democrats are holding this process up. Estrada has over 51 votes, but the vote is still held up in filibuster.
I’m not up all the “law talking type guy” stuff.
So forgive if I am not clear- but golly law is hard! 
The Constitution is clear: A majority is required to confirm judicial nominees. A minority of Senate Democrats is effectively changing the law... So the democrats are Unconstitutional?
|
Mr. Mojo,
Don't believe all the rhetoric you hear. The Constitution has provisions for this activity for a very important reason. Our founding fathers were adament against a pure democracy because they felt government affairs should not be run by the masses. This idea permeates the entire structure of our government--even down to the Senate and House rules. If you notice, many things require more than a mere majority.
The reason behind this is the belief that the majority can always protect itself--they always have more of the votes, by definition. The minority can only protect its interests (and the interests of the people it represents) by resorting various tactics. One of those tactics is the fillibuster and is outlined very specifically in the laws. A fillibuster requires a consensus--not a majority--vote. A consensus is formed when the vast majority of people agree--usually occurring as a result of compromise. These are important components of our Congressional apparatus--unless you desire our legislative branch to just become a rubber stamp for the executive branch. Of course, placed in that context you can see how that would undermine the basic reasoning for having seperate branches in the first place--to seperate the powers. Usually, one group has control of the House or Senate to counteract the group in control of the presidency. This time, however, the republicans have majority control over all three branches of government. The founding fathers explicitly wrote a final "check" in case this happens--the fillibuster.
Whether you agree with the republican agenda or not the fact remains that millions of US citizens affiliate themselves with the democratic agenda. The argument that everything should be decided by majority vote ignores the fact that when repbulicans possess the majority of the votes (and vice versa for the democrats) those millions of people would not be represented in the Congress. This idea is illustrated throughout the government structure even down to the voting process. Notice, there is only one place this doesn't occur (presumably to avoid gridlock), the Supreme Law of The Land--the Supreme Court--which has an uneven number of justices and where majority does rule. Of course, the genius of the system is that these justices are not elected--they are appointed and not subject to the whims of the masses (which the founding fathers viewed as the uneducated and easily swayed by appeal to emotions).