[Congressman Billybob]

Your conclusion is dead wrong. The filibuster has been ruled constitutional for LEGISLATION only. It has never been tested regarding judicial nominees. The Constitution is, as it says, "the supreme Law." Therefore if a Senate Rule contradicts a constitutional provision, the Rule loses and the constitution wins.

And it has long since been ruled that where the Constitution calls for a decision and does not specify a supra-majority, the usual rule applies, that it requires only a simple majority.

John / Billybob

[Mike10542]

Neither has it been tested for any nominees (we can't forget about that, especially with the Bolton issue still looming).

[Jim Noble]

And it has long since been ruled that where the Constitution calls for a decision and does not specify a supra-majority, the usual rule applies, that it requires only a simple majority.

John, I yield to no one in my respect for your constititutional knowledge, but I think you are wrong, for two reasons.

Reason one: The current number of votes needed for the Senate to consent to a nomination is 51. The rule of the majority which you seem to think exists in penumbras and emanations of the treaty clause is in effect.

Reason two: Article I, s.5 constitutionalizes ANY rule the Senate makes about its internal proceedings. If you think Rule XXII has ever been ruled on by a court, I would love the cite. I think its a nonjusticeable question, and I would be very surprised if any Federal court would entertain a challenge.