Judicial Nominations, Filibusters, and the Constitution: When a Majority is Denied its Right to Consent

By John C. Eastman

Posted May 9, 2003


Print This

John Eastman, Director of the Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, testified before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution on Tuesday, May 6, contending that the current use of the filibuster to create an effective 60-vote requirement for confirmation of President Bush's nominees raises serious constitutional questions and that the Senate's World War I-era requirement that Senate rules can only be changed by a 2/3 vote is itself unconstitutional.

Dr. Eastman's testimony is available in PDF by clicking here. (Requires Adobe Acrobat.) The hearing was chaired by freshman Texas Senator John Cornyn, who noted in his opening remarks that the panel on which Eastman appeared was "comprised of the nation's leading constitutional experts who have studied and written about the confirmation process."

Download Adobe Acrobat for PDF Files

Download Adobe Acrobat for PDF Files

Search the Site

 

E-mail Newsletter

Enter your email address below to join Precepts, the Claremont Institute's email newsletter.

 

My Claremont Login

Stay up to date with the Claremont Institute events, programs, and publications most important to you. Claremont Review of Books subscribers receive complete online access from the first day an issue is published. Please login below or click here to sign-up.

E-mail
Password

Other Sites

Copyright © 2002-2008 The Claremont Institute. Technical problems may be brought to the attention of the webmaster.