Byron York on Senate Democrats, MoveOn & Judges on National Review Online
The most substantive comments of the rally came from Boxer, who made a number of notable statements in her brief time at the microphone. First, she appeared to endorse the idea of the Senate creating a super-majority of 60 votes for judicial confirmations. Since federal judges enjoy a lifetime appointment, Boxer told the crowd, their confirmation is simply too important to be decided by a mere majority vote. "For such a super-important position, there ought to be a super vote," Boxer said.
The Constitution is not on your side Ms. Boxer. The filibuster junk is not in the Constitution but advice and consent is. How the Senate defines that is all up in the air at this moment.
UPDATE/Clarification: I should have said that the filibuster is not in the Constitution so if the Senate decides to change its' rules then there isn't any harm to our democracy. Boxer and Byrd to not have a Constitutional right to filibuster if the rules change.
UPDATE 2: Instapundit thinks Boxer wants to change the Constitution. A different take than mine but the same basic conclusion. The filibuster is not a guaranteed constitutional right. It would need to be changed.
Posted by Tim at March 17, 2005 12:58 PMOf course the constitution is on Boxer's side: the senate is entitled to determine its own rules.
Posted by: jpe at March 17, 2005 01:29 PM
