18 March 2005
This is what Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) said:
Why would we give lifetime appointments to people who earn up to $200,000 a year, with absolutely a great retirement system, and all the things all Americans wish for, with absolutely no check and balance except that one confirmation vote. So we're saying we think you ought to get nine votes over the 51 required. That isn't too much to ask for such a super important position. There ought to be a super vote. Don't you think so? It's the only check and balance on these people. They're in for life. They don't stand for election like we do, which is scary.
What'll you bet that if the Democrats had thirty-five votes in the Senate, instead of forty-five, Boxer would be insisting on a two-thirds majority for confirmation?
Now if she wants to introduce a Constitutional amendment to require a three-fifths, or whatever, majority, that's just fine with me. Otherwise, she needs to find something else to piss and moan about. (And unfortunately, she almost certainly will.)
TrackBack: 5:17 AM, 24 March 2005
» Constitution, what Constitution? from Ravenwood's Universe
When it comes to judicial nominations, some Democrats are ready to throw the Constitution out the window. Enter Senator Barbara "gun in her purse" Boxer (D-CA), the lone Senator who earlier this year tried to invalidate the vote of every......[read more]