A note on the Amazon ads: I've chosen to display current events titles in the Amazon box. Unfortunately, Amazon appears to promote a disproportionate number of angry-left books. I have no power over it at this time. Rest assured, I'm still a conservative.
|
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
Listen to the howls: Today's Wall Street Journal has an editorial that would cause Democrats to squeal like stuck pigs.
For those of you who don't have a Journal subscription, the thrust of the piece is that Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia -- the crazy old uncle in the Senate -- pointed out that there is nothing in the Constitution that requires an up-or-down vote on judicial nominees.
Byrd is correct. The Constitution requires only the Senate's "advice and consent," something the Senate has traditionally expressed with a vote.
The Journal concludes:
But now that Senator Byrd has expressed the view that the Senate doesn't have to vote at all, here's a better idea for ending the impasse over judicial nominations: Fifty-one of the 55 Republican Senators can simply send the President a letter expressing their support for his candidates. Under Mr. Byrd's Constitutional analysis, the Senate will have exercised "advice and consent" and the judges will be confirmed.
The thing is, it would in all likelihood withstand the inevitable court challenge. The Supreme Court would be loath to get involved with the Senate's internal workings.
I can just imagine the screeching from the political left if Republicans did this -- and I'd love every minute of it.
1:20 AM
|
|
