Constitutional Ammendment

[ashling]

I am so sick of these two phrases:

up or down vote - if the senate were in Dem hands or even 50/50, the GOP would never use this mantra.

the president gets to pick his own team (or other variations) - this means that "advise and consent" are merely words of art and are more or less irrelevant.


Assuming that this second should be a valid principle for the White House Team / Executive Branch (which is quite a stretch, if you ask me) it should not hold true for the Judicial Branch appointments.

The Dems shouldn't have to filibuster these appointments. Their needs to be a Constitutional Amendment requiring 60 votes for Judicial Appointments or any appointment that outlasts the president's term of office.

[gumby]

1. The only reason the "Constitutional Option"

became a propagandistic talking point is because the Reich-wing stripped the "minority" of any historically available procedures to block nominations.

The latest 'talking points' are ALL some variation of: WE WON!!! NOW SHUT UP AND SIT DOWN!

[UrbScotty]

2. Exactly.

I think the Framers did a good job in writing the Constitution, but they should have put in a 2/3 or 3/5 requirement for judicial confirmations, considering they are lifetime appointments.

[Spinzonner]

3. Perhaps, but wouldn't that risk producing a lot of milquetoast

type appointee's who defining characteristics are non-offensiveness rather than a diversity of opinions from appointees over a period of time ?

Or gridlock. While the framers really weren't building the Constitution around political parties, they surely weren't ignorant of them. How many times in US History has a party held that kind of numerical dominance.

[housewolf]

4. "With the advice & consent of the Senate"

To me, that means that the president gets to make suggestions as to people to appoint to positions, but the the Senate gets to decide yes or no on those folks. It's not the president's decision, it's the Senate's.

[us1]

5. Get the Vote

Get the vote