The Constitution requires that the President seek the Senate's advice and consent on all federal judges. Is the Dems. strategy of using a filibuster a means by which to keep the checks and balances of power between the Executive and Legislative branches in tact? Or is it an unconsitutional means by which to exercise power that is not delegated to the Senate?
Before I try to answer, it is important to point out some background information. Thus far, 168 judges nominated by Bush have been confirmed. A total of 4 (5 if you count Pickering twice) have been effectively rejected by preventing an up or down vote on the Senate floor. Today, the number of vacancies on the federal bench is at a 10+ year low. In other words, there are fewer vacancies today than there have been in over a decade. Never before has a judge who has been rejected been renominated (this applies to judge Pickering).
To answer the questions I posed above, I simply do not know. I know the Senate cannot let itself become the President's rubber-stamp, whether it be for judges or legislation. I know that the Republicans are being completely hypocritical (as are the Dems.) because when Clinton was pres., the Reps. loved to put up huge fights over judges and the Reps. in this Congress make a habit of not letting amendments and bills proposed by Dems. get out of committee. I know that the filibuster is a Senate tradition and an important part of parlimentary procedure that should not be done away with.
So perhaps the answer is that the status quo is a good thing. The overwhelming majority of judges should easily get confirmed, but a few battles should have to be fought to keep the Senate legitimate when it comes to its confirmaiton role and to make the President (be he Dem. or Rep.) aware that he cannot always get what he wants and he should not nominate extrimists, regardless of alleged intelligence. (I certainly question the intelligence of anyone who refuses to see that there is more than one legitimate side to every argument, including abortion and affirmative action).
The Founding Fathers set up the Senate as the grand deliberators to off-set the haste of the House. Perhpas if the system worked better, the Patriot Act would have many of its provisions and United Airlines, et al. would not have been givien tens of billions of dollars in free government money for implimenting failed buisness plans. However, I think the system is working just fine. After all, no one should have a 100% success record or always get everything they ask for.
