The American Spectator

Reader Mail

p> FILIBUSTER CATERWAUL br> Re: David Boaz's Filibuster Flip-Flops : /p> p>Mr. Boaz appears to be lost in the daily Washington tit-for-tat mentality that most American's find abhorrent. The caterwaul de jour of the chattering class is the "rediscovered" concern for "minority rights." Funny, I don't seem to remember this being a concern when the Democrats had a monolithic majority in congress for 40 years. But I digress. What Mr. Boaz and his ilk, including many timid Senate Republicans, fail to understand is that the use of the filibuster on judicial nominees is an unconstitutional act. The Constitution is explicit on this point. What is so hard to understand about this? An arcane Senate rule does not supersede the Constitution. Furthermore, the precious use of the filibuster is not prohibited in matters of legislation simply because there is no constitutional right to legislation. Each party is free to filibuster legislation to its hearts desire. I do not recall when Republicans have engaged in a filibuster against judicial nominees. Minority rights are alive and well. It's when they are used in shameless derogation of the Constitution that people who know better should wake up and take notice. br> -- Anthony F. DiPentima, Esq. /p> p> I just don't understand why when this is talked about, it is not made plain that the only filibuster the Republicans are talking about getting rid of is the one for Judges. No one has talked about getting rid of it for bills. The Democrats are the ones that have changed the rules, now let's get them back the way they have been for over 200 years. br> -- Elaine Kyle br> Cut & Shoot, Texas /p>

topics:
John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Business, Religion, Islam, Environment, Constitution, Law, Supreme Court, Iraq, NATO, Oil