Re: last installment --Supreme Court ....

--- toma19@charter.net wrote:

> Myth #3 is that the President--if he consults at
> all--need only consult with members of his own
> political party in the senate. That is simply not
> the case; read section two again, and again if
> necessary. Nowhere does it even imply that the
> party not in power can be ignored. Please note that
> if it were a Democrat in the President's position,
> and the Democrats were the party in power in the
> Senate, the same 'rules' would apply to them.
>
> Finally, a quick word about fillibusters with
> supreme court nominees, and the so-called 'nuclear
> option' to not permit them. It is the fillibuster
> that gives the party not in power, some LIMITED
> ability to come to the table and have some
> substantive input. Republicans who argue that the
> fillibuster was never meant to be used with
> appointments to the Supreme Court are quite frankly
> disingenuous. Repulicans fillibustered President
> Lyndon Johnson's nomination of Abe Fortas until
> Johnson finally withdrew the nomination. And they
> were entitled to do so.
>
> In summary, the constitution presupposes an active
> role of the majority and minority parties of the
> Senate in the ultimate selection of a Supreme Court
> Justice. It is the constitutional duty of ALL
> senators NOT to just roll over and accept anyone who
> the President wants. To do so would not only be
> shirking their responsibilities as a U.S. Senator,
> but would also trivialize the concept of checks and
> balances. Make sure your senators do their job.
> Remember, appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court is a
> lifetime position. Many appointees often vow to
> complete their terms (with apologies to the memory
> of the late Justice Thurgood Marshall....)
>
> I hope this article has been useful.
>