A slightly different take on the Filibuster of Judges

[ACPlayer]

It seems to me that in addition to reducing the braking effect that the minority can have on a run-away majority this so-called Nuclear Option seems to have the effect of continuing a slow but steady erosion of the balance of power between the exective and the legislative branches.

The executive is pushing the legistlature to change its rules so that the executive can achieve an objective it otherwise would not be able to. The legislature is complying.

In the war in Iraq resolution, one sees the same thing. The legislature basically abandoned its role and handed the power to make war to the Executive branch.

Why is the Legislature so willing to hand over more power to the Executive?

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that in addition to reducing the braking effect that the minority can have on a run-away majority this so-called Nuclear Option seems to have the effect of continuing a slow but steady erosion of the balance of power between the exective and the legislative branches.

The executive is pushing the legistlature to change its rules so that the executive can achieve an objective it otherwise would not be able to. The legislature is complying.

Why is the Legislature so willing to hand over more power to the Executive?

[/ QUOTE ]


Because in this case the legislature has far overstepped their bounds. The Senate Democrats blatant obstructionism is highly irregular at best.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is the Legislature so willing to hand over more power to the Executive?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the current majority in Congress shares the same (or similar) policy goals as the executive. One man's 'handing over of power' is another man's 'teamwork'.

[[censored]]

I don't see what is different about this opinion?

[yaomama]

[ACPlayer]

I am actually interested in why the Legislature (of both parties) does not ask itself the question why should it change the rules to suit the demands of the executive.

I suspect that if the Prez was not pushing for this rule change it would not happen or even be an issue.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
I am actually interested in why the Legislature (of both parties) does not ask itself the question why should it change the rules to suit the demands of the executive.



[/ QUOTE ]

Well the "official" answer is that never in the history of the senate the minority filibustered judges who would be approved given the opportunity of the a vote. They feel that it is the legislature who is overstepping its bounds.

It should be obvious why a republican senate would go along with this.

Let's get real though this is has nothing to do with seperation of powers and everything to do with polictical idealologies. Do you really think if the roles were reversed each party would act as their opposing party is now?

[vulturesrow]

Name one Clinton nomination that got filibustered.

[[censored]]

Are you saying republicans stopped a vote from taking place, or that they the nominees did recieve a majority of the votes?

[yaomama]