Personal tools

Argument: Filibuster is necessary check on permanent judicial appointments

From Debatepedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Parent debate

Supporting quotations

"A response to arguments that a filibuster on the Estrada nomination is unprecedented or inappropriate." National Women's Law Center: "Filibusters/cloture votes on other matters are commonplace, yet they are more justified when needed to stop a lifetime judicial appointment. Legislation can always be amended or repealed, and executive branch appointments last only for finite terms or at the pleasure of the President. But once the Senate confirms a judge, its decision is irrevocable, given the rarity of impeachment. And judges on the federal courts wield enormous power. The Courts of Appeals are the courts of last resort in the vast majority of cases, and they have tremendous latitude to interpret and apply the broad principles laid down by the Supreme Court. The D.C. Circuit is the most powerful of all the Courts of Appeal."

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits