Posted on 11/19/2013 11:54:30 AM PST by Olog-hai
Democratic leaders are again taking the temperature of their caucus on whether to finally go “nuclear” and change the Senate rules after Republicans blocked another judge Monday night, aides said.
Conversation about the “nuclear option” between leaders and the rank and file began as members trickled back into town before a failed 53-38 cloture vote on the nomination of Robert L. Wilkins to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Though Democrats have threatened to change Senate rules on multiple occasions this Congress—and have yet to blow up procedure to remove the 60-vote hurdle for nominees—talking about rules change again would at a minimum appease frustrated progressive members and, at its most dramatic, alter the way the Senate does business.
After the vote, Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., a top proponent of changing the rules, released a pointed statement urging leaders to consider moving forward. …
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.rollcall.com ...
I agree that the Senate should not be able to block appointments with 40 votes. Advice and consent in the Constitution means that if 51 Senators consent, the appointee is confirmed. I believed that when Bush’s appointments were being blocked, and I still do, notwithstanding that we have a foreign usurper allegedly in office making those appointments.
Just remember, Democrats, payback will just be one year away. And payback WILL be a bitch.
What does “moving forward” really mean?
And isn’t the Senate free to adopt its own rules as to how it will deliver that advice and consent?
This nuclear option talk is boob-bait for Mitch McConnell. It’s all designed to send him into a capitulative tizzy.
It does NOT say that in the Constitution.
" [The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint...Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States."
No percentage is specified. The Senate determines what this means.
Not when the rules are unconstitutional. 40 senators can’t change the Constitution.
...and the Constitution says that the Senate may not adopt rules for the conduct of its business? Must be one of those penumbras we hear told about.
The US Supreme Court would NEVER come down on the current rules as Unconstitutional. You’re crazy if you think that would ever happen ... not in a million years.
Look, we have been through this discussion, ad nauseum, back when Bush was President, and back when the opinion here was about 98 % in favor of ramming the nominations through. There was lots of scholarly information and discussion about the framer's intent in connection with "advice and consent", and it was clear that they did not intend for it to mean a supermajority. They knew full well how to require a supermajority.
I was for the nuclear option then and I am fine with it now. The problem is that Republicans will allow themselves to get hosed by it now, and then reimpose it on themselves later, if they are ever in charge again, because the NY Times will tell them to play fair. And they will fall for it.
As I said, the issue is not whether the Supreme Court would hear it, although I think that there are good arguments that an appointee could make if 51 Senators go on record to say they support his nomination. Rather, the issue is whether a Senate rule can trump the Constitution. If the chair says, no it cannot, then 51 Senators can override Senate rules and vote in favor of the nominee, and the chair can rule him approved. And no one will ever be able to say he is not confirmed. That is what should have been done with Miguel Estrada, and what should be done with any Presidential appointee who is held up longer than reasonably necessary for the investigation necessary to the advice and consent power.
You should research the subject before you spout off. We have. It has nothing to do with legal sophistry, it has to do with the framer’s intent, separation of powers and the ability of a minority to frustrate the will of the majority when the Senate is exercising a duty. Study up on it, come up with an educated position, and then we’ll talk.
Article I, Section 5, says: Each house may determine the Rules of its Proceedings,.... The Senate's rules were adopted by the Senate and no Court may arrogate to itself the authority to abrogate those rules.
Read more about it, review the arguments that were made during the Bush years by conservatives, then we can talk. People that make arguments about the law that change depending on who is in office are the reason why we are losing the rule of law in this country.
If the Republcans win the White House in 2016 and the Democrats filibuster every judicial appointment that comes to the Senate - and you know they will - will the folks here still take the nuclear option off the table?
Your hypothetical is inapposite. The Senate rules were adopted by majority vote.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.