[Mike10542]

I should have said presidential "nominees."

[Jim Noble]

The Senate has the sole power to make its rules: Art I, s. 5, second clause.

The extended debate rule (Senate rule XXII) is legal and constitutional.

There is NO CHANCE that the "consent of the Senate" will ever be deemed to be anything other that what Senate rules say it is.

[Congressman Billybob]

Your point is correct. Under the Advise and Consent Clause of the Constitution, all presidential appointments are affirmed by a simple majority, not just judicial ones. However, keep in mind the saying that "Politics is the art of the possible."

It is quite possible that enough Senators will vote to end the filibuster for judicial appointments right now. The groundswell is not there to end the filibuster for all appointments, right now.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, "A Triple Black Dog Double Dare to Infinity."

[Servant of the 9]

Before you start hating the filibuster, remember that without the threat of filibuster, the democrats would have converted this to the Peoples Republik of Amerika during the 60s and 70s.

SO9

[Fenris6]

The Senate has a duty to advise and consent. If they abdicate that Constitutional responsibility with filibuster, then the Executive Branch should be free to appoint nominees without the Senate's input.