Replies

Where exactly, in the constitution, does it say explicitly that a strict majority vote is all that is needed to approve a presidential nominee? I know it says 2/3 on treaties. Are we to simply infer from that unrelated passage that everything else is just a majority vote? Seems a bit of a leap to me.

Also, when have the Dems "filibustered" any judicial nominee from this administration? I thought a filibuster required holding the floor. In this ongoing debacle, I was under the impression that the Dims were getting away with this because the GOP refuses to actually make them endure a proper filibuster, with cots in the cloakroom and so on.

When the Constitution wants a supra-majority, it says so. All else is majority vote. Every Congress since the First (1789) has so concluded. So has every Supreme Court decision since its first in 1804. So that is not a "leap," it is a done deal.

Read Article II, Section 2, clause 2, and see if you can tease any other meaning from it. I think not.

The Dems in this administration have been engaging in "filibuster lite." They say they are going to filibuster, and the Repubs proceed as if there was talking all night. But the talking all night has not been done.

Billybob

Where exactly, in the constitution, does it say explicitly that a strict majority vote is all that is needed to approve a presidential nominee? I know it says 2/3 on treaties. Are we to simply infer from that unrelated passage that everything else is just a majority vote? Seems a bit of a leap to me.

You've got to be kidding. Actually, I know you're not given your political views. Your point is ridiculous. Majority voting was the principle in Parliament and the default rule of ever colonial assembly. And if the rule isn't a majority, then what is it? 53 votes? 56? 42? 48 on Tuesdays, but 63 on Wednesdays?

Also, when have the Dems "filibustered" any judicial nominee from this administration? I thought a filibuster required holding the floor.

You thought wrong. They altered that awhile back so that Senators wouldn't be passing out on the floor. The minority basically announces a filibuster, and the majority tries for cloture. But the long speeches are a thing of the past, and that's been the case long before the judicial controversy.