Tuesday, April 05, 2005

Mr. Smith was about Judges?

Now this is just ludicrous. Using "Mr. Smith goes to Washington" to try and scare people into siding with the dems concerning the filibustering of Pres. Bush's Judicial nominations.

First off, it's a FICTIONAL movie that, if I recall correctly, dealt with an appropriation bill and had nothing to do with Judges.

Secondly that type of "filibuster" doesn't happen anymore. There are no dems holding the floor talking for hours on end. And even when the Senate held a 39 hr debate on Judges the dems talked about anything but Judges. Harry Reid talked for hours about the eating habits of the local Searchlight Nevada rabbits. And they are some finicky cactus eaters, let me tell ya.

What's happening is the dems are basically changing the constitution to make Judges need a super-majority in order to get confirmed. In the Senate in order to stop debate and bring a vote the Senators must invoke cloture, that takes 60 votes. The dems are blocking cloture thus blocking a vote from coming up in which the Judges would be voted on and most likely confirmed.

There are SIX specific places in the US Constitution, not including amendments and seven if you include States ratifying an amendment, where a super-majority is called for, the voting of Judges is NOT one of those six.

And has Robert Byrd forgotten what he's said in the past?

“The Constitution in article I, section 5, says that each House shall determine the rules of its proceedings. Now we are at the beginning of Congress. This Congress is not obliged to be bound by the dead hand of the past

. . . The first Senate, which met in 1789, approved 19 rules by a majority vote. Those rules have been changed from time to time . . . So the Members of the Senate who met in 1789 and approved that first body of rules did not for one moment think, or believe, or pretend, that all succeeding Senates would be bound by that Senate . . . It would be just as reasonable to say that one Congress can pass a law providing that all future laws have to be passed by two-thirds vote. Any Member of this body knows that the next Congress would not heed that law and would proceed to change it and would vote repeal of it by majority vote." source1 source2


Anyway..........Here's People For the American Way's add using "Mr. Smith" and FactCheck's take on it.

And if you'd like to read Byrd's use of "Mr. Smith" go here and click # 19 . UNLIMITED DEBATE IN THE SENATE. Be sure to read Senator Hatch's rebuttal too.