Posted on 04/16/2005 2:53:41 PM PDT by Jean S
Edited on 04/16/2005 2:54:27 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
No it isn't. The Constitution allows the Senate and House to set their own rules. The filibuster does not change the number of votes needed to approve a nominee, just how to get that vote.
He's right. But hey, why give up a chance to whine in a few years?
A hypothetical that fits your premise: Senate rules that 95 Senators have to agree to vote on ALL matters that come before the Senate. Treaties, budgets, spending bills, etc. Since they rarely get around to meeting this threshold, the Senate rarely votes on these matters. Presidential prerogative and House bills are bottled up due to a Senate rule.
According to the principle you describe, this is Constitutional because the Senate hasn't actually conducted a vote.
Hell, attitudes like that are the reason he got his @$$ handed to him in 96'. I bet his wife thinks differently. I wonder why the AP is not quoting her?
According to the Constitution it would be.
I probably didn't make it very clear but I was not
suggesting the Senate rule was unconstitutional - of
course I know they can set their rules - but that the
filibuster applied to an issue that doesn't require a
supermajority IS, the confirmation of judicial nominees.
In fact this rule can be removed by simple majority.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.