[Sacajaweau]

Every Judge who has ever sat on on the Supreme Court has been put there via a simple majority vote. There has not been a single exception.

[RobbyS]

Several ways of vetting judges have legitimacy. One is the select committee,another the permanent committee, third is deference to senators from the state that the candidate comes from. The last practice dates to the WASHINGTON administration. to extend the same courtesy to the minority party is absurd.

[TheDon]

Senator Chambliss (R-Georgia) did a great job making the case on Fox this morning. He made the point the conflict was between a Senate rule and the USC, and, obviously, the USC wins.

[Non-Sequitur]

Presidential appointments can be derailed through filibuster or through refusing to schedule hearings in the appropriate committee or through anonymous holds by a single Senator. All those are allowed through Senate rules, and if one of them is unconstitutional then everyone of them should be unconstitutional.

[sdpatriot]

as another freeper poster said the other day - we sould donate our Constitution to Iraq, as we sure as heck aren't using it anymore.

and that applies to a lot more than getting Judges voted on.

[Lunkhead_01]

While I agree that the Framers only intended a simply up or down vote regarding appointments for judges, ambassadors, cabinet secretaries, etc., the Constitution does allow the Senate to make its own rules. So why doesn't Bill Frist simply keep the Senate in session 24 hours a day and make the Democrats shut down all business by actually fillibustering? That would be a spectacle from which the DEMONRATS would take years to recover.

[MosesKnows]

Neither the filibuster, nor a supermajority vote, is part of the Advice and Consent role in the U.S. Constitution.

There are two issues as I see it. What is meant by Advice and Consent and what is the purpose of a filibuster?

I had always thought the purpose of the filibuster was to bring about compromise. A filibuster of a proposed bill serves to bring about compromise; i.e. remove this clause, restate this one, add this amendment, etc. Compromise is the objective of all political discourse. However, what compromise can be sought regarding the appointment of a person? After reviewing the person’s record and having the opportunity to question the person about his record, it is time to take a decision. There is no compromise possible when reviewing the person’s record. The record is the record; it cannot change. A filibuster that does not seek compromise is disingenuous and a filibuster that cannot achieve compromise is unethical.

The Constitution is very explicit when it enumerates exactly what limited powers are granted the branches of government. The Constitution states that the President shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law:

My opinion of the Advice and Consent is simple. The President nominates. The Senate is obligated to examine the appointee and provide the President with their advice. The President is obligated to consider the merits of their advice and either withdrawn his nominee or ask the Senate to vote. After the Senate has expressed their advice and the President has considered that advice the next responsible step is for the Senate to vote.

[Sandy]

The author is talking about the actual Consent vote and the rules along the road to the Consent vote as though they were the same thing. His argument is bogus on two fronts. First, nowhere does the Constitution forbid Consent-via-Supermajority. Second--even *if* the Constitution did forbid a super-majority requirement--it'd be beside the point since the Senate requires just simple majority for Consent. It takes 51 votes to confirm a nominee, not 60 or 66 or anything else. 51 votes, a majority. Essentially, the author is arguing that the Constitution forbids an action that isn't even occurring.

[Revererdrv]

Liberal Democrat Judges would work to weaken and destroy the Nation. Democrats must work to block their enemies, Conservative Judges.

[AFPhys]

The Constitutional Convention considered at least three alternative options to the final Appointments Clause: (1) placing the power in the president alone, (2) in the legislature alone, (3) in the legislature with the president’s advice and consent.

On June 13, 1787, it was originally proposed that judges be “appointed by the national Legislature,” and that was rejected; Madison objected and made the alternative motion that appointments be made by the Senate, and that was at first approved. Madison specifically proposed that a “supermajority” be required for judicial appointments but this was rejected.

---

PING
`

[nopardons]

bttt

[MarkL]

Hey, remember, the constitution is a "living document." Besides, they're not really "rules," more like "suggestions."

Mark

PS, the next time I hear some idiot say "living document," I will force him or her to agree that the Constitution is a "legal document." Then I'm going to ask them if they would ever accept any other "legal document" as a "living document," one that will change over time!