Replies

Keep in mind that the filibuster is not an all-or-nothing issue. A filibuster concerning ordinary legislation is one thing. That's a matter of the internal operations of the Senate.

A filibuster on judicial appointment is a different matter. The Constitution makes it clear that the "Advise and Consent" clause requires only a majority of the Senators present is sufficient to approve a judicial (or other) presidential appointment. Applying the filibuster to that violates the Constitution, by increasing the vote margin from 51 votes to 60 votes.

Don't get caught up in the idea -- which the Democrats are peddling -- that ending the filibuster for legislation will happen if the filibuster is ended for judicial nominations. That is flat-out false. Both methods of freeing the judicial nominations leave the filibuster untouched with respect to ordinary legislation.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, "The 2004 Election is Over, Now," discussion thread. IF YOU WANT A FREEPER IN CONGRESS, CLICK HERE.

The Constitution makes it clear that the "Advise and Consent" clause requires only a majority of the Senators present is sufficient to approve a judicial (or other) presidential appointment.

Then why can't the Republicans have most in chambers and then just voice vote? I have hear the Dems do that and not sure if a quorum was even there.

What is good for the goose, good for gander

If action is being held up in the Senate with an unconstitutional action (filibuster), why doesn't someone sue to let the courts determine its constitutionality? I understand that we need to be concerned with letting the activist courts do that, but is it a reasonable pursuit?
Advise and Consent should not be subject to this filibuster action of the Demon-rats.