[Bubba_Leroy]

I have a serious constitutional question here. The Constitution charges the Senate with the duty to vote on judicial nominees. If they refuse to perform their constitutional duty that means no more federal judges. Ever.

What happens when one Senator, in this case the Senate plurality leader Dashole, refuses to permit the Senate to perform its constitutional duty? It seems to me that the President could file a mandamous action against Dashole to get a court to order him to allow a vote.

The courts can't tell the Senate how to vote, but the Senate has a clear constitutional duty to vote every judicial nominee up or down.

[Timesink]

What happens when one Senator, in this case the Senate plurality leader Dashole, refuses to permit the Senate to perform its constitutional duty? It seems to me that the President could file a mandamous action against Dashole to get a court to order him to allow a vote.

I think it might be too risky to go that far. That just makes us look (to the sheeple) like we're playing politics as much as they are. Right now we should stick to our principles and let them get all the attention as the bad guys. Then come November, we'll get the Senate back and this problem will be solved.

If necessary between now and then, Bush should simply make recess appointments out the wazoo.

[Reagan Man]

The way the rules are set up, a nominee first has to make it out of committee. Then theres a vote by the full Senate. Daschle and Lott have an agreement that allows USSC nominees to have a floor vote, regardless of how the committee votes.

[madison46]

Personally I think so as well.