Decius wrote:
] ] Uder the deal, the Democrats agreed to accept cloture
] ] votes on three of President Bush's judicial nominees:
] ] Priscilla R. Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and William
] ] Pryor.
] ]
] ] The Democrats made no commitments regarding
] ] two other conservative judicial nominees, Henry Saad and
] ] William Myers.
]
] Hrm. Most of the stuff I have been reading has focused on Owen
] and Brown as being the most contentious nominees, rather then
] Saad and Myers. (Although Myers in particular seems to have a
] lot of people up in arms.)
]
] I'm not sure what the democrats have gained here. A promise
] not to use the nuclear option is rather empty if there are no
] fillibusters to nuke, and this deal seems unenforceble. There
] is nothing to stop the Republicans from going back on their
] word once these nominees are approved and a Supreme Court
] position comes up. Taking a politician at his word seems like
] a dumb idea. By the time this comes back around most will not
] remember this debate and a little bit of spin will be all
] thats needed to deal with those that do.
]
] Democrats: 0 Republicans:
] 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

The Dems tries to end filibusters a few years ago when they had control. So whoever has control can play this card - I think they should just end the filibuster or bring the count down to 51 votes required instead of 60.

I mean, if you have a majority you have a majority. The people elected the Rep's into office and into a majority for a reason.

ibenez wrote:
]
] The Dems tries to end filibusters a few years ago when they
] had control. So whoever has control can play this card - I
] think they should just end the filibuster or bring the count
] down to 51 votes required instead of 60.
]
] I mean, if you have a majority you have a majority. The
] people elected the Rep's into office and into a majority for a
] reason.

It's good to know you listen to AM radio to get your talking points.

This is of course not historic, and other administrations will try to do something like this again. The rules of the Senate require Senators to work together. But Frist wasn't able to pull it off. But let us pray together for the wisdom to see through partisan bullshit.

The argument that if you "have a majority you have a majority" is valid... in the House of Representatives. Don't believe me? Let's go to the horses mouth:

Article 1 Section 3 Clause 1: states that: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, (See Note 3) for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

Article 2 Section 2 Clause 2: [Speaking about the powers of the president] He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and 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: but the Congress may by Law 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.

Okay so A1S3C1 basically means that "THIS IS TO PROTECT THE MINORITY RIGHTS". On the House side it's like romper room. Watch some of the stuff on the House floor... it's sorta chaotic; People are queued up to attach admendments to bills; there's a lot of gavel beating and asking the House to come to order; Atmosphere is like a highschool cafeteria. And really it's about majority rule. But here in the Senate everyone is equal. All states are equals. We work thru a method we have called Unanimous Consent. Only by consensus do things happen. They shall work together to build and pass laws.

All things in the senate... all committees and all senate hearings and everything on the Senate floor operate by the principle of unanimous consent. Infact the start of the day requires unamimous consent to even begin. You need unamimous consent to do a roll call for a vote. You need unamimous consent to even begin a vote. (check it out: http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/menu.htm)

Let me digress on one bit of Senate rules I find facinating. There are three times ... [ Read More (0.2k in body) ]

] Article 2 Section 2 Clause 2: [Speaking about the powers of
] the president] He shall have Power, by and with the Advice
] and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two
] thirds of the Senators present concur; and 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: but the
] Congress may by Law 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.

So, what does this mean. John Jay Hooker, who, incidentally, believes that there ought to be a constitutional amendment to require a 2/3rds majority of the senate for judicial confirmations and wants to end lifetime appointments, thinks that judicial fillibusters are unconstitutional. His arguement is fairly persuasive.

The constitution requires a 2/3rd majority of the "senators present" to approve a treaty. It does not make this requirement for judicial appointments. It requires only consent. What does consent mean?

I've managed to think about this long enough that I can see both sides.

The most obvious meaning for a legislative body is a simple majority. This is the most plain and obvious way of thinking about this. The Consitution requires a simple majority for judicial confirmations. In that light, the fillibuster is unconstitutional, because it creates a super majority requirement.

On the other hand, if the framers intended to require a simple majority they might have said that specifically. They didn't. So, maybe it means whatever the Senate decides it means, as "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings..." Maybe the Senate can decide that consent means whatever they want in any situation where the constitution doesn't specify.

The danger of the later train of thinking is that I'm concerned that it is over thinking the issue. It might be sophistry. The constitution specifically mentions super majorities in situations where extra care must be taken (such as for impeachment.) The default case is obviously a simple majority. If it were "whatever the senate defines" then the senate could require unanimous consent for any legislative issue, which would create the preverse situation in which impeachment would require less consent then the passage of a simple law.

The danger of the former way of thinking is that if a simple majority is required for judicial nominations, then it may required for all other kinds of senate business. Now the filibuster has been a part of parlimentary proceedure for over 200 years. The idea that its unconstituional in general is rather radical thinking. You'd think this would have come up b... [ Read More (0.2k in body) ]