Reply #6: Partisan disinformation from the WSJ

[LizW]

As usual.

If the WSJ wants to talk about what the Constitution requires with regard to the nomination of federal judges, then they should be honest and talk not just about the "consent" portion, but also about the "advise" part.

The reason the filibuster has become the only and final weapon available to the minority in the Senate is because, as Christy Harvey and Judd Legum state in an article for The Nation:

"(Bush) has ripped the "advice" out of "advice and consent." He has stubbornly refused to substantively communicate with any senators who oppose his nominees. When the Senate fails to confirm his nominees, Bush just reappoints them or, worse, bypasses the Senate altogether and installs them on the bench during a recess. This kind of toxic environment makes judicial filibusters more likely."

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0305-29.htm

"Advice and consent" go hand in hand. If Bush sought the advice of the Senate Democrats, he wouldn't have any problem with the consent part. And don't think for a minute he couldn't find qualified candidates who would be acceptable to Senators of both parties. More of Bush's nominees have been confirmed that Clinton's and vacancies on the federal bench are at the lowest level in fifteen years.

Bush's problem is that he wants to ram through extreme right-wing idealogues. The Constitution's requirement for the advice and consent of the Senate is intended to combat exactly this problem.

The WSJ's argument is dishonest. Read the Legum/Harvey article linked above. It sets out the truth needed to counter this kind of crap.