In the US Senate the Majority is in the Minority.

You might have a point if this was an interpretation of Senate rules. It's not. It is an interpretation of the Constitution.

How very odd, Fishin' . . . i've never seen anyone "cough up" any "spew" about a "living breathing document." I'll not deny that this is so, but it would be more credible if you can provide an example of that happening.

Quote:

The FACT is that in MY OPINION, as previously stated, each and EVERY President deserves to have their appointments voted on by the Senate. I feel that way today and felt that way Yesterday.

That's interesting. And you think that the President deserves to have their (sic) appointments voted on because he's the President? or what? Because you'd like to further subvert the the Representatives of the People from forming their own opinions and making their own judgements?

Some people, mostly in Red States, think the President is a kind of king. You don't, do you?

Would you rather not have to go through the appointment process at all, I mean, wouldn't it be easier if we just let the President put whomever he wanted into the Courts? Although that doesn't sound like the American way, sounds more like Putin's recent moves in his country.

I'm not saying that you are in favor of the New American Authoritarian Government, but each and every President deserves..... sure sounds like it.

Joe(Do we at least get to choose the color of our children's uniforms?)Nation

quite agree there fishin' which makes me wonder why I keep hearing the the telly that the repubs cite this as a constitution question and the dems cite this as a constitutional question. (while the ordinary man in the street cite this a business as usual inside the beltway)

Setanta wrote:

How very odd, Fishin' . . . i've never seen anyone "cough up" any "spew" about a "living breathing document." I'll not deny that this is so, but it would be more credible if you can provide an example of that happening.

Al Gore good enough for you?
http://www.issues2000.org/Archive/Dem_LA_Government_Reform.htm

How about Talkleft.com??
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/001125.html

And of course there is Joe. But it's not polite to talk about him like that.

In fact, each and EVERY one of these judges already HAS had an up-or-down vote in the Senate, and they ALL lost. So now they re-nominate them and try to change the rules in order to get them confirmed. Not exactly sporting.

Cycloptichorn

People who win elections deserve to have their policies put in place unless the policies amount to persecution. That's one of the benefits of winning elections.

Quote:

People who win elections deserve to have their policies put in place unless the policies amount to persecution. That's one of the benefits of winning elections.

Winning elections does not give anyone carte blanche. It might give a person the opportunity to have his policies DEBATED but not just put in place. Putting the ruler's policies in place is what they do in dictatorships, not republics.

Some have predicted that we shall soon have one media corporation, one bank, one airline and one political party. Isn't that what the Soviets had?

It isn't being a 'sore loser.'

The fact is there are 60-vote majorities in place for a reason. It ensures there has to be a level of bipartisan suppoprt. Even on most contreversial bills, one party can get a few members of another to sign on, even if it's just one.

In this case, not a single member of the minority party will sign on. This means the legislation/appointment should not pass; when such a large section of the Senate can't agree, there are obvious problems with what has been proposed.

This brake on majority power is INTENTIONALLY there! To remove it by claiming that the Senate is acting in an 'Unconstitutional manner' is ridiculous.

Cycloptichorn

The fact is that the Senate is the only hope left against the majority party steamrolling the minority on every issue.

parados wrote:

You might have a point if this was an interpretation of Senate rules. It's not. It is an interpretation of the Constitution.

How exactly does changing the internal rules of the Senate create a question of interpretation of the Constitution? Is there anyone that seriously questions that the Constitution gives the Senate the ability to make their own rules of procedure?

Of course the Senate can change its rules. But the rules now state that 67 votes are required to change the rules. The way the GOP is going to get around this is by having Cheney state the rule violates the Constitution. Therefore it is an interpretation of the constitution not the rules that they are using to do this.

When a judicial nomination is brought to the floor and a filibuster is under way, Majority Leader Bill Frist will "seek a ruling of the chair (meaning the Senate's presiding officer) as to the number of votes needed to end the debate."

Vice President Cheney will presumably be the presiding officer. Since the Senate rules are clear, one might assume that Cheney will be forced to inform Frist that 60 votes are needed. But Cheney plans to rule that only a simple majority is needed, for he will claim that the Senate rule requiring 60 votes is unconstitutional.

Cheney's ruling can be challenged by senators, but, and here's the crucial trick, it would only require a simple majority to uphold the presiding officer's ruling. Hence only 51 senators are needed to go through with the nuclear option.

But make no mistake: the 51 senators would not be voting simply to change the Senate rules. They would be voting to affirm the presiding officer's ruling that the normal Senate rule violates the Constitution.

parados wrote:

Of course the Senate can change its rules. But the rules now state that 67 votes are required to change the rules. The way the GOP is going to get around this is by having Cheney state the rule violates the Constitution. Therefore it is an interpretation of the constitution not the rules that they are using to do this.

Kind of amazing that no one has noticed this little violation before. It gets even trickier to make it happen.

Quote:

When a judicial nomination is brought to the floor and a filibuster is under way, Majority Leader Bill Frist will "seek a ruling of the chair (meaning the Senate's presiding officer) as to the number of votes needed to end the debate."

Vice President Cheney will presumably be the presiding officer. Since the Senate rules are clear, one might assume that Cheney will be forced to inform Frist that 60 votes are needed. But Cheney plans to rule that only a simple majority is needed, for he will claim that the Senate rule requiring 60 votes is unconstitutional.

Cheney's ruling can be challenged by senators, but, and here's the crucial trick, it would only require a simple majority to uphold the presiding officer's ruling. Hence only 51 senators are needed to go through with the nuclear option.

But make no mistake: the 51 senators would not be voting simply to change the Senate rules. They would be voting to affirm the presiding officer's ruling that the normal Senate rule violates the Constitution.

Source