1 posted on
04/20/2005 2:39:32 PM PDT by
Mike10542
To: Mike10542
I should have said presidential "nominees."
2 posted on
04/20/2005 2:41:02 PM PDT by
Mike10542
To: Mike10542
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.
3 posted on
04/20/2005 2:42:29 PM PDT by
Jim Noble
(Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God)
To: Mike10542
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."
4 posted on
04/20/2005 2:46:55 PM PDT by
Congressman Billybob
(Proud to be a FORMER member of the Bar of the US Supreme Court since July, 2004.)
To: Mike10542
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
To: Mike10542
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.
17 posted on
04/20/2005 7:38:23 PM PDT by
Fenris6
(3 Purple Hearts in 4 months w/o missing a day of work? He's either John Rambo or a Fraud)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson