{"id":1701,"date":"2005-07-12T22:22:17","date_gmt":"2005-07-13T05:22:17","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.amptoons.com\/blog\/archives\/2005\/07\/12\/goodness-the-democrats-might-actually_do_something\/"},"modified":"2005-07-12T22:22:17","modified_gmt":"2005-07-13T05:22:17","slug":"goodness-the-democrats-might-actually_do_something","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/?p=1701","title":{"rendered":"Goodness, the Democrats might actually_do_something!"},"content":{"rendered":"

Or this could just be more b.s. grandstanding on their part, and they’ll let Dubya and the Congressional neocon-Republicans ‘have it all’–as usual. Anyway, Senator Henry Reid of Nevada cautioned that Democrats won’t shy away from using a filibuster<\/strong>, <\/a>should Bush nominate a candidate with extremist ideological reservations. So he says the Democrats will but we shall see.<\/p>\n

WASHINGTON, July 11 – Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, said Monday that he did not foresee a filibuster against President Bush’s choice for the Supreme Court, but warned that Democrats would not hesitate to slow the confirmation if they found the process or the nominee objectionable.<\/p>\n

“I don’t anticipate a filibuster, but I am not going to shy away from making sure that we have adequate time to explain our position,” Mr. Reid said as Senate leaders from both parties prepared to meet with Mr. Bush on Tuesday morning to discuss the vacancy.<\/p>\n

Mr. Reid also said Democrats would try to cooperate in complying with the president’s request that the seat being vacated by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor be filled by Oct. 1. But he pointed out that Justice O’Connor has agreed to remain on the court until her replacement is confirmed and that only six justices are needed for a quorum.[…]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Hmph. All bark and no bite, or will<\/em> the Democrats stand their ground should Dubya nominate some extremist wingnut to replace O’Connor’s seat on the highest bench in the land? We’ll just have to find out. Also, potential Supreme Court justices during the committee hearings are allowed to take somewhat of ‘judicial’ version of the Fifth Amendment and refuse<\/strong><\/a> to answer a question.<\/p>\n

[…]This response, known in the Senate as “taking the judicial Fifth,” has been recited in one form or another by every recent Supreme Court nominee, and it is almost certain to be used this year by whomever President Bush chooses to replace Justice O’Connor.<\/p>\n

It is bound to frustrate some senators and interest groups, since the new justice will be the swing vote on important issues like affirmative action, the role of religion in public life, states’ rights, environmental protection and laws on partial birth abortion.<\/p>\n

But as a practical matter, senators have no real recourse when a nominee declines to answer questions. They can hardly refuse to confirm the nominee on that ground alone, since so many other justices who have been noncommittal on the issues of the day have been approved.<\/p>\n

In 1986, for instance, Antonin Scalia refused even to say whether he subscribed to the principle of Marbury v. Madison, the fundamental decision in 1803 that established the authority of the Supreme Court to strike down laws as unconstitutional. The Senate confirmed him unanimously.[…]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Yes, we know he was confirmed and he is on the bench now. (sigh) And having an idea of what kind of candidate Bush will nominate, I’m sure watching the committee hearings will be similar to watching the Enron<\/em> testimonies. I wonder if anyone would keep count of how many times the Fifth was invoked by the nominee.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Or this could just be more b.s. grandstanding on their part, and they’ll let Dubya and the Congressional neocon-Republicans ‘have it all’–as usual. Anyway, Senator Henry Reid of Nevada cautioned that Democrats won’t shy away from using a filibuster, should … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":13,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[102,27,111],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1701","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-conservative-zaniness-right-wingers-etc","category-elections-and-politics","category-supreme-court-issues"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1701","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/13"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1701"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1701\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1701"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1701"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1701"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}