I know some will point out that the courts hate to meddle in Senate internal affairs and that may well turn out to be the dicision, BUT a case can be made that since this affects the Executive branch too, it's no longer an "internal matter."
In any case, if it is timed right, it puts the stalling on the front pages if the SCOTUS agrees to at least hear it and I think that the Dems position won't play with the mushy middle who right now is just ignoring the thing.
Politically, having a court case on the way to the SC is a winner in an election year.
which might be the best way to get the Dems to back away.
After all, even THEY have enough sense to know that Teddy Kennedy calling Janice Rogers Brown a "neanderthal" on the evening news is a losing position.
Don't they? If not, so much the better for us.
The difference being that the Republicans had the majority when they stopped Clintons judges. Having the majority should mean something.
Which evening news programs showed this?
Are you kidding me?
If O.J. Simpson can get away with cold-blooded murder on national television with 100 million people watching, don't you the the DemoRATS can find a good enough weasel (lawyer) to get them past a filibuster?
Are you telling me that Kennedy used the 'N-word' against Janice Rogers Brown? Where is the media outrage?????? I think that Kennedy needs to immediately apologize. Hmmm, I wonder if Kennedy considered Mary Jo Kopeckne a neanderthal too????
To those who say the SCOTUS won't take it, flat out, I say there are good arguments on both sides of that issue. The courts indeed get involved in separation of powers cases, but the threshold is not clear.
Purely hypothetical, but what if the Senate rules required unanimity for signing on to a treaty, in clear contravention of the Constitutional requirement for 2/3rds? That would effectively neutralize the Presidential power to make treaties. Similarly, in the case at hand. the President's power to approve Article III judges has been tipped.
Further, the Constitution provides for Senate oversight for Supreme Court nominees, and that the Congress can make laws prescribing the process for lower court judges (District and Circuit courts, in this case). Notice that the Constitution says the -mandatory- laws prescribing filling those lower offices may "... vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments." This clause intimates a limit on Senatorial power, and that for inferior Officers, the appointment power can be vested in the President alone, or in the courts -- but NOT interposing a higher barrier for appointment than the advise and consent of the Senate. It happens that the relevant statutes (for filling Disctict and Circuit Court vacancies) recite an advice and consent requirement, but the Constitution does not mandate this.
Clearly, if the Senate rules required unanimity in order to produce the advise and consent the Constitution requires for Supreme Court nominees, thereby permitting a single Senator to thwart the President in the exercise of his Constitutional power to fill a Supreme Court vacancy, we would have a Constitutional crisis. Would the SCOTUS take such a case? If yes, then we are talking about the threshold for taking a case. The Senate rules are now being used to effectively permit a minority of Senators to do precisely that, block Presidential appointments. The suit would be stronger if the President joined it, but I think the suit is ripe.
There is no doubt in my mind that the Democrats are perpetrating a Constitutional Crisis, and I sincerely hope they are called out on it.
As to whether or not the SCOTUS will take the case, I don't know. The point of this one-sided missive was merely to assert that the issue is legitimately arguable. It is not a cut and dried matter, and if the case is brought, the SCOTUS would be compelled to at least issue an opinion explaining why it is denying to become involved.