MAY
22, 2005 --
The
United States Senate has the constitutional authority to advise
and consent to the president's nominations to the federal courts.
Filibusters on judicial nominations may be a form of advice, but
they would seem to preclude the opportunity of the Senate to give
consent to his nomination.
If filibusterers were certain that a given nomination would be defeated, would
they use unlimited debate to defeat the nomination?
Unlimited debate on judicial nominations could, certainly, give opponents time
to bring up information on a nominee that would reflect on judicial qualifications,
including temperament. It seems to LPR that opposition to judicial nominations,
these days, is more likely to reflect result-oriented concerns.
When the Senate takes up the issue of filibustering judicial nominations, LPR
would like the debate to include reference to the counsel in Federalist 57
that the responsibility of leaders holding positions in constitutional government
is to serve "the common good of the society."
|
|
And also a
reference to the counsel of Chief Justice John Marshall, in Gibbons
v. Ogden, that fundamental notions of common sense should be
applied when "ingenious minds" try to confuse issues.
Republicans might want to review Chapter 6, of Machiavellis' The Prince, (translation
by Wayne A. Rebhorn, Barnes & Noble Classics) which includes this observation
of perhaps some relevance to the congressional GOP since the November 1994
election:
"[T]here is nothing more difficult to manage, or more doubtful of success,
or more dangerous to handle than to take the lead in introducing a new order
of things. For the innovator has enemies in all those who are doing well under
the old order, and he has only lukewarm defenders in all those who would do well
under the new order." (Machiavelli goes on to indicate that the allies
of the innovator,
still fearing their adversaries, are not quite
confident in the success of his program.) (Quoted at. p. 25.)
|
|
