Reject the filibuster of Kagan

Karen Karacsony
A couple of days ago I received an email from a conservative PAC urging me to contact U.S. Senators about voting against Obama's Supreme Court nominee, "even if it means a FILIBUSTER!"Conservatives are urging a filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee? Please say it isn't so!

The U.S. Constitution stipulates that the president is to nominate Judges of the Supreme Court "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate." Since "consent" in the republican model of government refers to majority rule, the Senate should take a Yea or Nay vote on the nominee, tally the votes, and then declare the nominee approved or rejected. It is the republican thing to do.

A filibuster, on the other hand, is the despotic thing to do. A filibuster prevents the lawfully elected president from moving forward in the appointment of a Supreme Court Judge. It also prevents the Senators, who have likewise been lawfully elected (Al Franken excepted, of course), from approving or rejecting the president's nomination. A filibuster, thus, subjects the majority to minority rule and undermines democracy as well as constitutionalism.

The U.S. Constitution needs no further undermining-especially from the Republican Party. And please don't say we need to abandon the Constitution to save it. That's no less daft than George W. telling us he needed to abandon free-market principles to save the free market. Such tomfoolery makes a mockery of logic and injects anarchy into our government. Please understand: The way we save our Constitution-even from leftist judges-is by electing Conservative representatives who promote originalist jurists.

Fellow Republicans, let's face it: We lost big time in 2008 and ushered a leftist oligarchy into power.  Be that as it may, we can either learn from our mistakes and work with verve and vigor to correct them, or we can abandon our principles and roadblock legitimate, constitutionally-ordained presidential activity. I suggest we do the former so that we may honor the consent of the governed and so that we may honor our Constitution.



A couple of days ago I received an email from a conservative PAC urging me to contact U.S. Senators about voting against Obama's Supreme Court nominee, "even if it means a FILIBUSTER!"

Conservatives are urging a filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee? Please say it isn't so!

The U.S. Constitution stipulates that the president is to nominate Judges of the Supreme Court "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate." Since "consent" in the republican model of government refers to majority rule, the Senate should take a Yea or Nay vote on the nominee, tally the votes, and then declare the nominee approved or rejected. It is the republican thing to do.

A filibuster, on the other hand, is the despotic thing to do. A filibuster prevents the lawfully elected president from moving forward in the appointment of a Supreme Court Judge. It also prevents the Senators, who have likewise been lawfully elected (Al Franken excepted, of course), from approving or rejecting the president's nomination. A filibuster, thus, subjects the majority to minority rule and undermines democracy as well as constitutionalism.

The U.S. Constitution needs no further undermining-especially from the Republican Party. And please don't say we need to abandon the Constitution to save it. That's no less daft than George W. telling us he needed to abandon free-market principles to save the free market. Such tomfoolery makes a mockery of logic and injects anarchy into our government. Please understand: The way we save our Constitution-even from leftist judges-is by electing Conservative representatives who promote originalist jurists.

Fellow Republicans, let's face it: We lost big time in 2008 and ushered a leftist oligarchy into power.  Be that as it may, we can either learn from our mistakes and work with verve and vigor to correct them, or we can abandon our principles and roadblock legitimate, constitutionally-ordained presidential activity. I suggest we do the former so that we may honor the consent of the governed and so that we may honor our Constitution.