http://www.petitiononline.com/judgeam/petition.html
It’s for a constitutional amendment that would require a 2/3 vote in congress for any judicial appointment. Regardless of what party is in the majority at any time, a 2/3 majority vote should be the standard to maintain the political neutrality of our judiciary.
This completely ignores the problem we have been having all along. If there was a 95% majority a single individual could fillibuster the nominee out of the running.
What needs to be done is a guaranteed up or down vote within a specific period of time after the nominee is brought into committee. We need to eradicate the punative nature of the judicial nomination process.
Democrats from a certain state are blocking a nominee just because a nominee from their state got bumped. Maintaining political neutrality of the judiciary is impossible as long as humans are judges. What you can do is make sure qualified people won’t be scared away from the judiciary for fear of political attacks in retaliation for some historical slight.
Maybe the problem hasn’t been the filibuster at all. Maybe the problem has been win-lose thinking, instead of win-win thinking.
I don’t know about win-win but I do know is a senator feels he go screwed by the opposition these judicial nominees sure look like great targets for revenge.
The problem is that politicians are playing politics! Partisan politics are out of control in this country and both the Republicans and the Democrats do it. The country is suffering as a result and will continue to do so until the status quo changes.
Chrisg967 hit the hammer on the head. Politics right now is a winner take all sport. Truthfully, it always has been.
I disagree with Right Thinker. The problem is bipartisan. Just imagine, if you will, if the Democrats held the Senate and appointed Barbara Boxer to the Supreme Court. Republicans would filibuster her and block her and dredge up anyone they can.
The amendment forces a President to pick a nominee that is balanced towards both sides, that is someone that is politically adept at making everyone happy for a career, and in that sense, would be a more balanced judge by temperment. It makes a compromise mandatory in a two party system, and therefor, avoids some of the rancor in trying to get one or two votes to ram a controversial nominee down everyone’s throats.
It does not serve the country well if one side has placed a justice on the bench which is deemed threatening or hostile to another side. Just imagine, if you will, the Democrats having 55 votes and the Presidency, which could happen in 2008. Would you want them to be able to put a judge on the bench who argued in favor of gun control for his entire career, the way some of our nominees argue against abortion? Absolutely not. Let’s have the courts be boringly centrist, middle of the road, and save the hardcore politics for the legislature, where it belongs.
Chris, this idea seems noble, but it would incur rapid loss of judiciary seats. Since there is a lynch pin issue, abortion, and no republican has nominated a pro-choice judge, and no democrat has nominated a pro-life judge, and even if either did, the judge still would find it hard to get not just 60 votes, but the 66.6666666 you propose. THe only think this idea will accomplish will be to prevent any judges from being confirmed until one party is a super majority. The problem isn’t that there needs to be bipartisan ship in the nominee, I mean, when is the last time a democratic president nominated a pro-life judge…the problem is that these people should get votes, and be passed based on the way it is written in the constitution. Two thirds majority is not in the constitution, advise and consent is all that we have to debate.
Section 2 Clause 2 of the US constitution
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
Notice how two thirds consent is written specifically into the ratification of treaties. But not nominations to the courts. Explain to me the constitutional meaning of ommitting the very thing you are calling for? Are you proposing an amendment to the constitution, do you think that there should be a two thirds majority needed to approve all of the presidents cabinet. Because in the constitution these are put together. And to an honest non-partisan observer, clearly state that a simple majority is all that is needed for congress to give consent. This is why the filibuster hasn’t been used on any judicial nominee who had popular support of congress. And the only time a vote was delayed was when congress wanted to allow the nomination to be pulled to prevent humiliation of the nominee. FYI, signing the petition was a waste of your time.
Win-win thinking is where you step back and realize that both sides could come up with a better solution if they set aside their differences and co-operated. However to do that usually takes presence, and possibly giving up the need to be right.
The suggestion to require 2/3 vote in Congress is but one possible solution to the issue of judicial appointments. What about having public nominations and voting, same as for President and Congress? What others can we think of?
I love how when we come to the brink like we did this week, how our senate really looked back at the history and upon doing so, the whole thing comes full circle.
A 2/3 majority vote on everything that passes through the senate was the initial idea. The entire reason for the Senate approving appointments of the President was put in place initially…so that the President could not appoint their family and friends to positions of power. Today it’s more about ideology than those connections, but still as vital as it was back then.
It’s about tomorrow being just as important as today. And about both the majority and the minority having a say.
I feel the president should have more leeway who he selects for his cabinet than who he appoints to the bench.
Pro-life/pro-choice – do these judges hop on one side of the other in order to get elected? Justice is supposed to be blind, and with that in mind, why should a judge put a sign on their forehead showing bias to either side?
A judge has the right to their personal beliefs, but that’s when they have the robe off. When the robe is on, they have a responsibility to provide an unbiased decision in accordance with the law. Perhaps unlike politicians, a judge’s political beliefs should be kept to themselves. If none of these judges have decided a case where abortion was deemed legal or illegal, why should their feeling on it be known in the first place?
“I feel the president should have more leeway who he selects for his cabinet than who he appoints to the bench. ”
Apparently the constitution disagrees with you. Consent..is all it says, why doesn’t it say consent of two thirds? Maybe because that wasn’t the intentions.
“Pro-life/pro-choice – do these judges hop on one side of the other in order to get elected? Justice is supposed to be blind, and with that in mind, why should a judge put a sign on their forehead showing bias to either side? ”
Some issues aren’t going to come to a super majority consensus. One of which is abortion…well alot of which is abortion. Lets look at democratic presidential candidates, when is the last time a Pro-Life democrat was nominated by its party? Or a Pro-Abortion candidate by the republican party? SO…you have presidents who are on one side or the other, nominating judges who are on one side or the other…and what you wish to see is a president who is pro-life nominate a pro-choice guy so that a consensus can be made with the minority. It hasn’t worked that way in the entire history of government, and its not going to. THE ONLY TIME it should happen is when the people aren’t in consensus, i.e. a democratic congress and repulican president, aren’t in consensus…so the president will have to work with the congress. Besides this, im getting tired of debating a party on the use of filibuster on nominees, when they were adamently for abolishing the filibuster on LAWS, which I’m sure you would agree is patently wrong, but if you don’t, ill let you sign the petition to allow republicans to make whatever laws, so long as dems can filibuster judges!!
I don’t have it available, but in the federalist papers it was discussed. There’s a fundamental difference between allowing the president to select who works for him and who works independantly from him for the rest of their lives. One job lasts the length of the president’s term, the other goes on until the person dies or retires.
A Republican senator brought this difference up in debate yesterday – I believe it was Conyers, and Biden conceded. There is a difference, and a President should have more leeway when nominating his cabinet than judges.
This didn’t answer my question of ‘why’ their belief on abortion needs to be known in the first place. It doesn’t pertain to their job at all.
Thanks for a lovely site, I am very impressed 🙂