Here we go on federal judges. Claims he has nominated only individuals who will "interpret" the law rather than "legislate" from the bench, and that are "well qualified." This is demonstrably untrue with respect to some of the nominees that the Dems have filibustered. As I recall, one of them seemed surprised when Sen. Specter asked whether federal law took supremacy over state law. Uh, yeah — it’s kind of right there in Article VI of the Constitution, dude.
Please share widely!
More troubling, Bush said the Senate has a “constitutional obligation” to take “an up or down vote” on all of his judicial nominees. Read Boffo’s well-reasoned rebuttal here: http://boffo.typepad.com/boffoblog/2005/01/bluster_about_t.htmlThe gist is that the Constitution says the President appoints judges with the “Advice and Consent” of the Senate. It does not say there must be a majority vote for nominees. If a Senate, within its own rules (which the Supreme Court has established as the legitimate authority regarding procedures such as judicial confirmations) kills a potential nominee in committee, it has failed to provide “Consent” and fulfilled its constitutional obligation.In fact, if they really want to be strict constructionalists (and I know they always do, right?), the President should have to go to the Senate for “Advice” about potential nominees before he even names them. Oops!