Freepers Please give your input.

[factmart]

The Constitution says a simple majority is all that is needed to confirm judges, so why not have the Supreme Court Decide?

Could any of my fellows freepers tell me why the Supreme Court can't fix this seeing how it's right in the Constitution ?

[Blood of Tyrants]

Actually, the Constitution says: "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".

[Not A Snowbird]

Nice post, but why did you direct it to me?

[Keith]

The constitution makes plain that Congress is a self-policing entity...they set their own rules...it's part of the separation of powers...

[Sen Jack S. Fogbound]

Much what you said in your Post No. 13, Fred. And I agree with most of it.

Such rule-making, however, lead to much abuses of privileges. Often unfair. Even so, it is necessary evil.

It is true many bad bills die in committees, but not all. This is where many chairmen has the power to delay or even kill the bills as well as to advance it to the committee itself and to the floor.

I would hazard to believe we all need to review the Constitution (including myself) again to make certain we know what we are talking about. This thread is very educative and I am enjoying it. I'm learning a lot.

[Ichneumon]

Nice post, but why did you direct it to me?

I pinged several people, but I added your name because your answer to the original question seemed to imply that you thought the questioner was correct in his statement that the Constitution mandated a simple majority in the Senate.

[MohawkDrums]

Actually, Republicans did use the filibuster against Democratic appointees. There were a couple of cloture votes in 2000. I wouldn't get too worked up about this -- eventually, once the point has been made, the filibusters tend to go away. It's all a show for the folks at home.

The more interesting question here is, how many votes does it take to change the Senate rules? Looks like they need a two-thirds majority to change the filibuster rule, which means they need some Democratic votes.

[FredZarguna]

I said I might be mistaken, and now that you mention it there were some appointees blocked--don't recall if they were judges. Clinton got around some by recess appointments--which Bush should also have done. But I still think it's fair to say this has gone to a new level. It's become routine to filibuster judicial appointments, and that was not common in the past. One thing further: I don't share your optimism. I think the Dems will dig their heels in and this problem will not go away.

[FredZarguna]

The more interesting question here is, how many votes does it take to change the Senate rules? Looks like they need a two-thirds majority to change the filibuster rule, which means they need some Democratic votes.

I would be surprised--even at 55--if they could even get enough Republicans for a majority.

[tpaine]

MHGinTN wrote:

Time for you to flex your knowledge, TP. PING))))))

Why is it time? -- And how could my flexing be of any help to you, seeing you are beyond reason?

[Not A Snowbird]

I wasn't answering to that, just the role of the Court.

[MHGinTN]

Sheesh! Sour since your liberal lost the election? ... I was inviting you to help with clarifying the issue re Constitutional directions.

[tpaine]

Sheesh... Forgive my cynicism, but every time I attempt to 'clarify' issues, you're the one that makes the sour, liberal type remarks, backing big brother solutions.

[Conservative Canuck]

Judges interpret the law, while Congress makes the laws. There has to be a separation of the judicial and legislative branches of government. Otherwise, you'd have judges appointing judges without oversight, creating a situation where they are above the law.