The Results Are In
Samuel Alito won "one of the narrowest Senate confirmation votes in a century" to take the reigns over for Justice O'Connor. The vote was 58-42, not even close considering Thomas's vote was 52-48. I'm curious to see if Alito stands by what he said during the series of question's he encountered. Only time will tell. I wonder why the Dems didn't filibuster, but that doesn't matter much now.
I think we owe Warren a golf clap. He picked the winning day- the 31st. Warren wins the pool and the prize is not going to Disney World. Congrats!
posted by Anonymous at 6:26 PM
4 Comments:
Huzzah!
Always wanted to "not" go to Disney World!
They didn't filibuster because it would have triggered the so-called Nuclear Option.
What they are calling a filibuster is clearly not an actual filibuster.
From Wikipedia
(Although I'm not a fan of Wikipedia, this information is correct.)
"in current practice, Senate Rule 22 permits procedural filibusters, in which actual continuous floor speeches are not required, although the Senate Majority Leader may require an actual traditional filibuster if he or she so chooses. This threat of a filibuster can be just as powerful as an actual filibuster."
In other words, the lazy SOBs don't actually filibuster, they just say they are going to which requires a cloture vote to override. In effect 41 Senators can stop any legislation cold.
Go look at the Wiki and read the history of the filibuster and you will get a good idea how it has stopped or slowed down civil rights legislation as early as 1946.
The Constitutional roll of the Senate in judicial nominations is "advise and consent", not super-majority approval.
1/31/2006 9:23 PM
warren:
'The Simpsons' had the funniest comedy about Disney World in one episode. now you can be anti those cliche TV ads.
i read something today about the phrase "longer than a Louisiana filibuster" was coined because of southern legislators blocking civil rights bills in the 50s and 60s.
i don't know about anyone else, but i'm curious if he will follow stare decisis.
1/31/2006 9:55 PM
Following, stare decisis, blindly, would be a very unintelligent (if not stupid) thing to do.
If all Supreme Court Justices followed stare decisis, we would be practicing "Jim Crow" legislation as the law of the land.
I suspect that he will follow as long as stare decisis is in agreement with the Constitution and in instances where past president is so firmly entrenched in our society that to do otherwise might create social upheaval.
1/31/2006 11:30 PM
I never had any doubt of the outcome
2/02/2006 5:36 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home