Replies

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 The President is obligated to consider the merits of their advice and either withdrawn his nominee or ask the Senate to vote.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.

Very good post vis a vis what filibusters are and are not supposed to do.

Liberals are saying that a "filibuster" is defacto "advice" and that "advice" is to find someone else. Clearly, that power is not ennumerated to the senate. They can only, as a body, reject or accept the nomination by voting up or down. The minority cannot, by an adopted senate rule, (filibuster) force a "no vote" from the whole body on a candidate who has made it out of committee. Filibuster of a judge makes no sense on the merit of the idea alone, as you so clearly pointed out. Judicial filibuster is a silly idea, on its face. Kudos.