I disagree. The Congress has a committee structure. Most of the serious work is done in committee. On nominations, the serious congressional oversight is done in committee. If the president sends up a bad or otherwise controversial nomination, that's the place to stop it.
Remember, to "bottle it up in committee" requires that you have a majority of the committee disposed to do so. A MAJORITY. You can't filibuster in committee. You have to have the votes.
There is a clear distinction to be made between killing a nomination -- or indefinitely postponing it, which amounts to the same thing -- by majority vote in committee and, on the other hand, blocking it through a minority filibuster on the floor.
I was frustrated, but had no procedural objection, when the Democrats running the Judiciary Committee shut down Presidents Reagan and Bush's nominations prior to the 1988 and 1992 elections. They were simply holding those seats open, hoping a Democrat would get a chance to fill them. Nor is there a procedural objection to a Republican-controlled Judiciary Committee turning the tables. In all these cases, those doing the "obstructing" had a majority of the votes in committee. The 'rats are now trying to equate this with a filibuster on the floor of nominees who enjoy majority support both in committee and the full Senate.
Not so.
There's nothing in the Constitution about committees. I think it's totally up to them to be serious, non-serious, or whatever. The Senate rules its own affairs. My point is simply that you can't on the one hand say nominees deserve an up or down vote on the full Senate, and on the other hand block up or down votes in committee by not even considering the nominees. It's a joke.
Remember, to "bottle it up in committee" requires that you have a majority of the committee disposed to do so.
So on the one hand, the Constitution supposedly requires a simple majority of the Senate to confirm, making a mere 41 senator blockade a travesty of justice, yet 10 senators in a committee is democracy in action? C'mon. Why kid yourself? I don't believe the Constitution requires the Senate to confirm one way or the other. But you can't say that 41 senators blocking a nominee is wrong, but 10 blocking one is right. They are both examples of senators using available tactics to get their way. Nothing more.
There is a clear distinction to be made between killing a nomination -- or indefinitely postponing it, which amounts to the same thing -- by majority vote in committee and, on the other hand, blocking it through a minority filibuster on the floor.
LOL. I love all the euphamisms. "Postponing indefinitely" is substantively different from unlimited debate? I think not. In both cases, a minority of senators use senate rules to block a full vote. You can't believe the constitution requires an up or down vote of the full senate on the one hand, and say a committee majority of 10 can block one on the other. I think both the committee block and the filibuster are permitted. The GOP are either suckers or playing us for suckers by not simply acting, and Rush and Hannity and the others are all out to lunch crying moral outrage instead of just flexing the old muscles and taking what we've earned at the ballot box. If they don't come through, they'll all pay a price.
You can go on with the talking points all you want. "Enjoy majority support", blah blah. You watch. Filibuster of nominees will never ever be ruled unconstitutional. Ever. We're not talking about morality here. We're not even talking about fairness. We're just talking about what's allowed and what's not. What the dems are doing is allowed. The GOP can stop it too, simply by changing the rules. Why they haven't done it in the last 2 years is beyond me. Don't you think two years is long enough to wait for action? Not so.