As we continue to wait for what could be one of the most historic votes ever taken in the United States Senate, it would be a good idea to review what some in the past have said concerning the Senate’s role of advice and consent. If Senate Democrats continue to insist on “minority” rule, Senate Republicans are poised to force on option to enforce majority rule, that would restore constitutionality to the process involving judicial nominees.

During the debate for ratifying the Constitution in the State of Virginia, James Monroe had the following to say concerning the appointment of judicial nominees by the President of the United States. Along with the President’s role, he enumerates the Senate’s role in advice and consent. Here is the excerpt from the debate held on June 10, 1788:

“He is to nominate, and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States. The concurrence of a bare majority of those who may be present will enable him to do these important acts. It does not require the consent of two thirds even of those who may be present.”

The entire debate on Virginia’s ratification of the Constitution, can be found here.

We have listened and read the many speeches given by Senate Democrats on the floor of the Senate, and have been pummelled by MSM in their attempt to sway the public to join in the Democrat distortion. Most of these speeches center on the need for extended debate on nominee qualifications, but as we listen, their arguments don’t make sense. Senate Democrats portray a picture of these nominees which would have them so outside of main-stream legal thought as to make them unacceptable as Appellate, or Circuit Court Judges. Yet when we hear of the compromise du jour, it always includes some of the same judges who are supposedly unfit to be judges.

So what is the answer to this Democrat riddle? The answer of course has nothing to do with extended debate, and in reality has nothing to do with the qualifications of the nominees in question, since they are acceptable under certain circumstances.

The riddle has been concocted in order to sustain Democrat control over the legal system, and to preserve the filibuster as a means to obstruct any Supreme Court Justice who might be nominated by President Bush.

As we have observed with the posting each week of our Saturday Evening Judicial Review Posts, how the courts, especially the Supreme Court, have decimated the Constitution over the past fifty years. It is imperative that Senate Democrat obstructionism of judicial nominees cease and desist. If need be, the filibustering of judicial nominees may require Senate Republicans to force the constitutional measure of a simple majority in voting consent for these nominees.

This will be a historic step taken in the restoration of our legal system to a constitutional foundation, and pave the way for Supreme Court nominees to be quickly voted on and sworn in as justices.

Contrary to what we have been hearing from Main Stream Media, and Senate Democrats, the historic interpretation of what constitutes advice and consent, is a simple majority of Senators. After making the statement quoted above, James Monroe, went on to become a Senator from Virginia, and later President of the United States. It was his interpretation of the process that it did not require two-thirds of the Senate, or sixty votes, but a simple majority up or down vote, to confirm judicial nominees.

Our thanks to Confirm Them, for pointing to the link above.

This entry was posted on Sunday, May 22nd, 2005 at 1:10 pm and is filed under Saturday Evening Judicial Review Post. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.

Tags: Supreme Court, nominee filibuster, James Monroe, advice and consent, Democrat obstructionism