Posted on 01/16/2005 1:46:52 PM PST by inquest
WASHINGTON — The Senate's Democratic leader said Sunday that Republicans "would rue the day" if they try to make it harder for Democrats to stall judicial nominees who could not get a vote last year. But Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said he hoped a new "optimistic" climate would take hold now that Nevada Sen. Harry Reid is the top Democrat, succeeding the defeated Tom Daschle of South Dakota, whom the GOP labeled an obstructionist.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Sounds like the Dems have taken a page from the North Korean's. When completely powerless, threaten.
FRIST DOES NOT HAVE THE SPIT & VINEGAR NECESSARY TO DEAL WITH THE LIBERAL SLOBS! He is too nice and too willing to compromise! This is a job for a WARHORSE that won't be bullied by the enemy. Like PATTON; grab em by the nose and kick em in the ASS!
This shows exactly what kind of whimps the Republicans in the Senate are. The Dems know they are such cowards they can make a statement like this and the Republicans will not call them on it.
Any normal person - that was not afraid of what was contained in their FBI file - would wake up the next morning and push the Senate's red button.
The Constitution says that the Senate can set it's own rules, and one of those rules states that it takes 60 votes to shut off a debate. And that applies to all debates, not just judicial nominations.
As I understand it each incoming senate sets its own rules. All that is needed is a new rule that says a simple majority is all thats needed to shut off debate. I may be mistaken, but if not I say they should do it.
Wrong salimi breath. Cheney rules it out of order and THEN it goes to the Senate parlimentarin who then has the final say. :-}}
You might want to tell non-sequiter that.
The point is, as MoConservative explained so well, to simply effect a change in Senate procedural rule XXII. No ''lies'' are necessary, of any kind or description.
This rule, from an en passant interpretation, has been corrupted from its decades-long intent of and usage for not stifling debate on legislative matters into a catch-all universal supermajority requirement for ANYthing to proceed.
Lies, forsooth? In a procedural change? Oh, puh-lee-ze. Demagogue something else, you apparent Daschle wannabe.
In any case, the Senate surely can, if it wishes, specify in detail and in WHICH matters rule XXII may be applied by the membership. Nothing dodgy at all about doing so.
Such a ruling would be incorrect. The Constitution does not require the Senate to advise and consent; it merely states that such advice and consent is needed before the President can make any appointments.
Frist is correct; it is your assertion which is incorrect (as well as your logic). The Senate duty of Advice and Consent is indeed mandatory. The Constitution is an enumerated codification of the specific delegated powers and responsibilities of the branches of the federal government and of the various officials whose positions require them to carry out those responsibilities. Upon assuming office, both Presidents and Senators swear an oath to uphold the Constitution; their duties are not optional, they are mandatory.
Lest there be any doubt, in specifying the process for filling judicial vacancies the Constitution uses the imperative "...he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint..." throughout Article 2, Section 2 when referring to presidential appointments. The President is explicitly required to fill judicial vacancies when they occur, and the Senate is required to perform its specified duty of "advice and consent". Once the nomination is made the Senate must either approve or reject the nominee. There is no Constitutional provision for refusing to do either one or the other. The Constitution does not direct that the Senate is to give "Advice and Consent" or "just ignore it".
The logic of this is quite simple and inescapable. The President is required to fill these vacancies ("...he shall nominate, and ...shall appoint..."). Those who try to dissemble and deny the Senate's responsibility by asserting that Article 2, Section 2 does not specifically say "the Senate shall" fail to grasp (or more likely deliberately ignore) that this is covered by the Senate members' Oaths of Office. If the Senate fails or refuses to perform their Advice and Consent function, then they are preventing or obstructing the President from fulfilling his mandated duty. Obstructing a Constitutional Officer, e.g. the President, from carrying out his duty is itself a violation of the Constitution.
All the blather we continually hear that "the Senate makes its own rules" is nothing but a smoke-and mirrors scam contrived by the cowards and miscreants in the Congress to give themselves cover when they fail or refuse to fulfill their duties. Again, the logic is simple and inescapable. The Constitution does not address the issue of Senate rules, so the Senate is indeed free to make such rules as it sees fit. Common sense tells us that a set of rules which helps the Senate carry out its duties in a responsible and effective manner is a good thing.
However, the Senate is not free to violate, fail or refuse to uphold the Constitution (which includes fulfilling its specified Constitutional duties). To craft or to use a Senate rule in order to prevent or obstruct fellow Senators, who are ready and willing, from fulfilling their mandated duty is a violation of the Constitution. It is important to note that there is a difference between mandated Constitutional duties and regular legislation. The President and the Senate together are required to fill certain vacancies, via a specified procedure. They are not required to propose or pass any particular piece of legislation, e.g. a tax rate change.
Thus, the Senate philibuster rules are not unconstitutional per se. If the Senators want to haggle forever over how much more of our money they plan to take, more power to them, since, as noted above, the Constitution does not require that any specific piece of legislation be passed. It does require that judicial vacancies be filled, and it specifies the procedure. It is when certain Senate members use the rule to prevent their fellow Senators from carrying out their duties that the Constitution is violated.
The proper response to the assertion that "the Senate makes its own rules" is "yes, it is, but only so long as those rules are used to help the members perform their required duties". The "Senate Rules" objection is a red herring and a fraud.
More semantics. The point of order would be that it's not consistent with the constitution to require 60 votes to permit the Senate to vote & thereby do its constitutional duty of providing (or withholding) its consent.
What's the problem? Don't you think the Republicans, Democrats, and every freakin' pundit commenting on this issue has studied it? The point is it CAN be done. The debate should be over whether/not it should be.
It would take a super-majority vote to close debate on a rule change done any way EXCEPT the 'nuclear option'. Therefore, that, too, would require 60 votes Frist doesn't have, not a simple majority.
The paragraph I wasn't responding to wasn't talking about making a new Senate rule; it was talking about making a ruling on the Constitution. Constitutional rulings can be correct or incorrect, and this one they're talking about would be incorrect.
Right, when he gets the advice and consent of the Senate, he shall appoint. Not before then. The imperative is directed at the President, not the Senate.
Wrong again. You have merely restated your initial incorrect assertion. Your premise is invalid; sequence and timing is not equivalent to acting or failing to act. The imperative encompasses both the President and the Senate because the Senate cannot, by deliberately refusing to act, lawfully, i.e. constitutionally prevent the President from carrying out his duty.
Let's try putting it another way:
1. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land (at least it's supposed to be).
2. The Senate is free to make its rules, but Senate rules are not even ordinary laws, much less part of the Constitution.
3. When a Senate rule is either devised or is used to subvert, undermine, obstruct or otherwise prevent the members of the Senate or any other Constitutional Officer from carrying out their mandatory duties, the rule is invalid. The Constitution always trumps procedural rules.
You're just going round and round in circles. It's not possible for them to prevent him from doing his duty, because his duty is to make the appointment provided he gets their advice and consent.
It's not a question of "sequence and timing", just a question of meeting the proper conditions. If the conditions are met (that is, if he gets their advice and consent), then it's his duty to make the appointment. If the conditions aren't met, it's not his duty.
Something nobody has mentioned for discussion yet - the "nuclear option" is not the only choice available.IF the President chooses to do so, he may "hold back" the names of selected nominees and wait until Congress is not in session, at which time he has the right to exercise "recess" appointments to fill whichever bench positions he deemed necessary.
Those appointed would serve unhindered until Congress reconvened and took up the issue of their specific appointment. At that point, it would become procedurally easier to have them confirmed on a straight up and down vote basis, since they would already have established a record of decisions from their appointed bench.
You may be sure the 'Rats would absolutely HOWL over him using his Presidential power (justifiably) to such effect, and I, for one, would relish listening to the political spokesmouths, tv talking heads, and deadstream media print pundits writhe and twist in the wind!
But VP Cheney (and you) would be wrong. The Constitution says no such thing.
The Constitution says that appointments require the consent of the Senate, and the Constitution also says that the Senate makes its own rules.
The Senate could require unanimous consent for nominees without violating the Constitution.
The Vice President can facilitate, from the chair, changing the cloture rule by 51 Senators. I think he should do so.
He cannot invent Constitutional mandates where none exist, which is what you would have him do.
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.