This is bull. Just because the Constitution requires a super majority in some matters doesn't mean that a super majority is forbidden in other matters.
"Not required" does not equal "prohibited".
Any attempt to create a standard not specified in the Constitution, without amending the Constitution, is nothing short of a violation of the Constitution.
More bull. The Constitution doesn't specify a standard, so *any* standard is going to be a "standard not specified".
Thanks -- I was wondering if someone would point out the illogical thesis of the article -- I didn't want to, because I'm new. All of this is arbitrary and throwing around whether or not this debate is "Constitutional" is irrelevant and disingenous. All Senate rules are not layed out in the Constiution -- so does that mean that ALL Senate rules are unconstitutional? Of course not.
And .. obviously you have not read the Constitution.
The paragraph specifically states what requires a super majority and what doesn't. It's not REQUIRED for judicial nominees - and it never has been for 214 years.
So watch out for that BULL - you may end up stepping in it.
Not sure exactly where you are coming from on this issue Sandy, but I'll offer the following comments:
1. Use of the filibuster to obstruct the confimation of judges -- while not "unconstitutional" -- is certainly an extraconstitutional abuse of power and abdication of responsibility. To use a parliamentary procedure to impose a 2/3 majority requirement on the confirmation process is flat-out wrong.
2. While I hope the GOP senators will go ahead and trigger a procedural ruling throwing out the use of filibusters against appointees, I wish they had simply changed the rules at the beginning of the session to clarify the advise and consent process and eliminate the "gentleman's filibuster" on nominees. If the dems want to shut down the senate and insist on debating the nominees ad infinit itim, then let them do so and let nothing else proceed out of the senate. Otherwise, make them put up or shut up.
3. While your comment that just because the Constitution requires a super majority in some matters does not mean it is forbidden in other matters has some merit, but this abuse of the filibuster to impose a supermajority on judicial nominees clearly violates the intent of the advise and consent clause, especially when you consider what the framers of the Constitution had to say about confirmation of presidential appointees. The current environment of Borking every appellate court nominee that comes along would be as offensive to Madison and Jefferson as the offenses of King George that Jefferson enumerated in the Declaration of Independence. The actions of Reid, Kennedy, Kerry, et al would have resulted in being tarred, feathered, and run out of town in disgrace.
4. There is a huge difference between legislation, which must be passed by both houses and differences worked out in conference committee, and the confirmation of presidential appointees, which is a responsibility reserved by the Constitution to the Senate alone. Where a filibuster might be justified in the case of bicameral legislation, it should never be used to prevent the confirmation vote for an appointee.
That's not what they were writing; they were, correctly, pointing out what the Constitution DOES have to say about super majorities.
For all other matters not mentioned, yes, a super majority can be required IF THE SENATE CHANGES THE RULES! This is all Frist is doing now...making a rule that for judges it's not necessary to have 60 (it used to be 67 until the Dems changed it - lead by Sheets Byrd). Seems pretty simple.