Replies

Go HERE, scroll down and read the article by Gold and Gupta.

This issue has been debated in the Senate for 175 years. Senators long dead and Vice Presidents of all parties have used the same words you are hearing now. Rulings from the chair that supermajorities to end debate are unconstitutional have been made, but have never been upheld from the floor.

Such a ruling isn't going to be upheld this time, either.

The fact that a majority of senators has not been willing to override and change the filibuster rule merely means that the majority has prevailed, which is the constitutional plan. However, the real issue is whether a majority can change a Senate Rule. The answer to that is yes, because a majority (not super majority) of senators must adopt (or readopt) the rules by which a new Senate will govern its proceedings. This action, which in most instances is pro forma, is required because a prior Senate cannot bind a subsequent Senate to a set of rules without the agreement of the subsequent Senate. Thus, a new (subsequent) Senate can either approve or change its rules by simple MAJORITY vote. Therefore, if your point is that the current Senate will fail to change the filibuster rule because a MAJORITY of senators will not support the rule change, that could occur, and would be a constitutional exercise of power by a MAJORITY of the current Senate. However, if you are maintaining that the current Senate is without the power to change RULE XXII by a simple majority vote then your position is incorrect.

I think you're arguing apples and oranges.

There is no supermajority required by the Constitution to confirm a judge. It is required for treaties, laws, etc. BUT NOT FOR JUDGES.

What is it about this that people don't understand ..?? The repubs are NOT trying to stop the filabuster of legislation. That is not even on the table.

They are going to change a SENATE RULE which says a filabuster CAN STOP THE FLOOR VOTE for a JUDICIAL NOMINEE - which the CONSTITUTION DOES NOT REQUIRE - AND A SENATE RULE DOES NOT SUPERCEDE THE CONSTITUTION.

This sounds like the articles of faith maintaining that killing the ABM treaty would destroy the world and an ABM system won't work anyway.

Wrong.

If Frist says we have the votes for this, and the ruling is made, it will be upheld.