Replies

I don't think in this case that it is your standard run of the mill separation of powers issue. In this case both the it is not necessarily the executive "branch" vs. the legislative "branch" We are dealing with the explicit authority of the president to make nominations and the explicit DUTY of the Senate to advise and consent. Thus I believe that the constitution does not give the Senate the option of sitting on a nomination, but the Senate would be required to act upon that nomination. My guess is that if the SCOTUS takes the issue, the SCOTUS will interpret that clause to mean that the Senate cannot close its term without ruling on the nominations within that term -- since in essense there is a new Senate elected every 2 years. That would put an end to all the Borkings. That's for sure.

This is really a double edged sword. If the SCOTUS agrees with my interpretation, then a lame duck president could conceivably stack the courts by requesting that all the old dying judges that agree with his philosophy resign and allow the lame duck president to stack the courts with young ideolouges.

Nevertheless, I believe that this one has merit. I don't think it has been tried before only because nobody has ever used the filibuster technique to stop judicial nominations before. Now this issue is ripe for a SCOTUS review. Eventually neither side will like what happens.

The issues is the rules of the Senate - and thus far, the SCOTUS has not gone there - leaving rules squabbles to each legislative body. There is ample evidence in case law to support this.

More power to any Senator who can get a Federal court to first take the case, rule, and get it passes an Appleals court, then on to the SCOTUS if it comes to that.

This is really a double edged sword. If the SCOTUS agrees with my interpretation, then a lame duck president could conceivably stack the courts by requesting that all the old dying judges that agree with his philosophy resign and allow the lame duck president to stack the courts with young ideolouges.

I'm not sure they would rule as you hypothesize, that all nominees must be addressed within that term. Even so, the Constitution permits the appointment of lower Officers without advice and consent, so the risk you describe is already Constitutionally present.

I agree with your point that the case would have merit. As a political matter, I think this is better settled without involving SCOTUS.