[Non-Sequitur]

Frist could invoke the "nuclear option" (search) by having the Senate president, Vice President Dick Cheney, rule that filibustering violates the body's constitutional duty of advice and consent to judicial nominations. Such rulings can be upheld with a simple majority.

The Constitution does not give the Vice-President the authority to rule on what is Constitutional and what is not. Any such ruling on the part of the Vice-President would wind up in court, eventually before the Supreme Court. And if they rule against the Vice-President and the Majority Leader then the judicial candidate is back to square one and the administration looks stupid.

[only1percent]

Rather the contrary is true. Traditionally the courts have deferred ENTIRELY to the presiding officers and rule-making bodies of the houses of Congress on the question of what the Constitution dictated insofar as their rules and procedures. These have always been regarded as "political questions" over which the courts have no jurisdiction.

[No Longer Free State]

The Constitution does not give the Vice-President the authority to rule on what is Constitutional and what is not. Any such ruling on the part of the Vice-President would wind up in court, eventually before the Supreme Court. And if they rule against the Vice-President and the Majority Leader then the judicial candidate is back to square one and the administration looks stupid.

But the Senate rules DO. And that's what this is all about -- Senate Rules. Even if someone did sue, the Supreme Court would refuse to hear it because it's about the internal workings of one of the other branches. The Constitutional Option would definitely get the immediate goal. Not sure how it would work out in the long run, though.

[deport]

The Constitution does not give the Vice-President the authority to rule on what is Constitutional and what is not.

---

Do you really think the Court would take a case to decide who has authority to make rulings within the Senate rules, etc. I don't think they would. It's not a matter of Constitutionally but rather how the Senates rules will be enforced, imo.

[rwfromkansas]

Wrong.

As chair of the Senate, he can issue such rulings.

[SAJ]

The Constitution DOES however, specifically grant to both houses the right to make their own rules. There is no Constitutional requirement for a supermajority in the advise-and-consent process.

All Mr. Cheney need do is to respond to a point of order raised from the floor concerning this point...and, boom, the ersatz supermajority ''requirement'' is history as regards the nomination/advice process is concerned.

He need not make any sort of faux-Constitutional ruling; merely preside over a clarification of the rules of the Senate, which rules are **specifically** in the Senate's purview and control.

[cksharks]

Wrong salimi breath. Cheney rules it out of order and THEN it goes to the Senate parlimentarin who then has the final say. :-}}