Saturday, February 26, 2005
Vox Blogoli 2.2 Question : Grant, McClellan, Gingrich, and Senate Nukes
To me, the issue is simply whether the Senate is willing to face up to its constitutional responsibility to vote on the President's nominations. Our constitution provides many individual rights and a series of checks and balances to assure individual justice and freedom and to preclude the "Tryanny of the Majority"; it never intended to preclude decision by majority vote or to foster the "Tryanny of the Minority". Those few cases, where a super-majority vote was intended, were explicity stated. Based on founder intent and two hundred years of Senate history, there seems to be an especially clear case for a simple majority vote in the Advice and Consent process. I think the Senate should change its rule Back to a simple majority vote for nominees as was the case untill very recently and should do it as a matter of principle.
This has become a GOP - DEM issue because of a recent trend to constant campaigning and political obstruction by the party in the minority. There will always be power struggles and each party should press for the maximum advantage it can get. But that process of political warfare must stop short of overriding the constitution and ignoring the voters. Hence, the real issue is about the Senate doing its duty under the constitiution. Does it mean that President Bush is more likely to get his nominees approved, including some Supreme Court nominees? Yes, as it should. That issue was very much in front of the electorate last year and the voters decided it. Does it mean that, in future, a GOP minority may not be able to block a Dem President's nominees. Why, Yes, again as it should. How else can we voters influence our government?