Quote:
Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Weak.
Here's the truth: "Senate -- additional duty -----call bullshit on the Prez' nominations for judge IF THEY WANT TO." The Senate is free to advise and consent (or withold consent) in any manner they wish.
Your distinction is based on the premise that the Senate must serve as handmaidens to the Executive in judicial appointments (as opposed to while legislating).
Not so. Both are legislative functions under the Constitution. The Exec. and Legislative are co-equal branches of government -- and if the Pres. can't convince the Senate under whatever rules the Senate uses, the President loses that round.
S_A_M
|
Is this a debate about whether this is legal? Or just historically polite? A lot of these posts seem to hit cross-purposes.
The Constitution contains the (relative) unchangables. Everything else must be interpreted according to those precepts, but can vary as long as the Constitution is given its due. We've had rule changes before - that's how we got filibusters in the first place.
Is such a rule change civil? Maybe not. But both parties have had their very uncivil moments, so this is nothing new, nor is it particularly a badge of dishonor for any one side. It's in the nature of such a body to tussle procedurally, and to take power as the votes allow.
We all know that this is the runup to the SC appointments coming up. By itself, the rule change isn't that tough of a concept, but given the probable retirements, it's a critical one, and thus the enraged attention. But, I hope people remember that things cycle.
If they do change the rule, I truly hope that they do not then use it to appoint the most radically right SC justices they can find. At some point, Dems will rule once again, and it would be nice if there was some feeling, at least, that moderation prevailed over advantage. Otherwise, we're into a hundred year war.
