Dushan Yanich – 3/24/05

This page was last updated on March 25, 2005.

Santorum no lock in '06; Dushan Yanich; Beaver County Times; March 24, 2005.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“Currently, it takes 60 votes in the U.S. Senate in order to prevent a party from using a filibuster to block a judicial nominee whom the president wants to convey his personal views. The Republican Party has 55 senators.”

[RWC] Democrats aren’t really filibustering nominees; they are simply threatening to do so and spineless Senate Republicans treat the threat as the real thing. That’s a topic for another day, however.

Before we wax nostalgic about how great the filibuster is, let’s remember Democrats led the filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act until Republicans delivered enough votes to break the filibuster.

Let’s look at the allegation that President Bush wants judges who “convey his personal views.” A review of the appointments found objectionable by Democrats shows this is not correct. That said, as most conservatives, President Bush believes you interpret the Constitution by what it says, not by what you want it to say. As a result, the appointees of which I’m familiar tend to interpret the Constitution by what it says.

Liberals, on the other hand, refer to the Constitution as a “living document” subject to the personal policy preferences of judges. Here are two examples. The first is abortion. Find anywhere in the Constitution that denies states the authority to outlaw abortion. Related to this, explain how laws against suicide are Constitutional but laws against abortion are not. Logical inconsistencies like these are the result of ignoring the actual text of the Constitution.

The second example is the case of capital punishment for juveniles. When the 5-4 majority ruled on March 1, 2005, against capital punishment for minors – a practice upheld by the Court as recently as 1989, it did not base its decision on the Constitution. Instead, these justices looked to international authorities and the laws of other countries for guidance. Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy wrote, “It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty.” Are we to hold interpretation of the U.S. Constitution hostage to “international opinion?”

Democrats also have litmus tests. If they believe a judge would rule against so-called “affirmative action” programs, the judge is unsuitable. If they believe a judge doesn’t see a “right” to abortion in the Constitution, the judge is unsuitable. Quoting John Kerry from the third 2004 debate with President Bush, “I will not allow somebody to come in and change Roe v. Wade.”

“I very rarely agree with conservative columnist George Will’s articles. But I do agree with some parts of his column in Sunday’s issue titled, ‘Be careful for what you wish on Senate filibuster.’

“It states the 60-vote requirement is what our founders wanted in order to protect the minority’s views on ratifying treaties and impeachment convictions, etc.”

[RWC] Mr. Yanich needs to read the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution will you find mention of filibustering or protecting “the minority’s views on ratifying treaties and impeachment convictions, etc.”

No provisions of the Constitution require 60 votes in the Senate. All provisions of the Constitution that require a Senate “super majority” require a two-thirds vote; that’s 67 votes if all 100 senators are present. Some of these provisions require a super majority of all members and others only require a super majority of members present. The Constitution requires a Senate super majority in only five cases. They are impeachment conviction, expelling a member, Constitutional amendment ratification, override of a presidential veto, and treaty ratification.

According to Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, judicial appointments don’t require a super majority. Indeed, the Constitution allows Congress to permit the President to appoint judges and other “inferior Officers” without Senate “Advice and Consent.”

The filibuster is not a provision of the Constitution. It is simply a product of Senate rules the Senate can change and have changed in the past. See “Filibuster and Cloture” on the Senate web site for more details.

“The bottom line is that the Republican Party is short five members in order to achieve the magic number of 60.

“In his column, Will stated that there are five Democratic Senate seats up for election in 2006 in states that the president carried in the recent election. But he forgot to mention that there is a Republican senator’s seat up for re-election in a blue state that was not won by Bush. His name is Rick Santorum.

“That’s one seat the Republican Party cannot count on because he will be up against a super candidate named Bob Casey.”

[RWC] In case Mr. Yanich missed it, both of Santorum’s elections to the Senate came during a time when the Democrat presidential candidates – Clinton and Gore – carried Pennsylvania. Therefore, I’m not sure how relevant it is that John Kerry carried PA in 2004.

Mr. Yanich didn’t tell us why Bob Casey is a “super candidate,” other than Mr. Casey is a Democrat.