So what?
"Not required" does not equal "prohibited".
Repeat:
"Not required" does not equal "prohibited".
Repeat:
"Not required" does not equal "prohibited".
"Not prohibited" does not equal an endorsement for a minority to IMPOSE by obstruction an extra-constitutional requirement for confirmation. The Constitution specifies limited items that require a supermajority. Anything else can be passed with a simple majority.
You are correct that not required does not equal prohibited. So if it is the will of the congress and the people to impose a supermajority requirement on confirmation of presidential appointees, then the congress could propose and pass legislation (or more effectively a Constitutional amendment) to impose this new requirement and have it signed by the president (in the case of legislation) or ratified by 3/4 of the states' legislatures (in the case of an amendment). But without such OFFICIAL imposition of a supermajority reqirement for confirmation of appointees, the use of the filibuster is CLEARLY a case of a minority in the senate imposing an extra-constitutional supermajority requirement. There is absolutely NOTHING in the Constitution that would endorse the idea of the minority imposing new supermajority requirements upon the majority as the democrats in the Senate are doing.
You're talking semantics here and that won't work with me.
And .. you think if you repeat your assertions often enough I'll get it ..?? ROTFLOL!!!
Am I to understand that you believe that the framers intended for a minority of senators to frustrate the will of the majority and strip the senate of its responsibility of advise and consent? I don't think so. Your (and George Wills) argument is logical, but Mr. Will only makes the argument as a matter of GOP strategy in the event that we are in the minority.
Not too smart in my opinion. Filibustering (e.g. a rule that congress places on itself) judges is wrong; the senate parlimentry rules cannot subvert the executive arthority under art 2.
If a president does not sign a bill, what happens to it?
He can veto it, but if he does not sign it, well, it becomes law anyway right?
A vocal minority in Congress is basically saying via a filibuster "we are not signing the bill."
The same rule should apply to the congress as does the president. A minority should not be able shut down the exeuctive because they do not like his appointment choices.