Questions about Constitutional Option

June 15, 2005 | Michael Katz

[Mike10542]

Two questions about the potential use of the constitutional option:

1) If the Democrats were to continue filibustering Bolton, would Frist consider using the constitutional option and make it apply to all executive branch nominations (originally it was only going to be for judges)?

2) Within the constitutional option, does it at all deal with what would happen to nominees that got bottled up in committee, say because there was a Democrat president and Republican Senate. I believe that every nominee is mandated a Senate Floor vote and that not only are filibusters unconstitutional, but any procedural techniques to deny an up or down vote are too. That means that even if a nominee is rejected by committee, they still are mandated to be sent to the Senate floor for a vote (which means freepers what Republicans did in the 1990's to reject Clinton nominees was wrong too). Who agrees and does the constiutional address nominees who are rejected by committee?

Thanks.

[AzaleaCity5691]

Judges and cabinet positions are a different thing entirely, just ask Andrew Johnson how much control a President has over his cabinet.

Now, I don't think Frist would use it on this issue, because well, Bolton's not a lifetime appointment, judges are.

He's better off holding it in reserve for the Supreme Court battle.

Especially since I'm not so sure we'd win that vote if it was for Bolton.

[Mike10542]

Of course, a nominees rejected strongly by committee probablyt won't pass on the Senate floor, but that vote still must take place. I just think that for example, if there was a tie or Bolton was instead rejected by committee, he still should be sent to the floor for a vote. One Senator or two shouldn't be able to decide a nominee.

[Mike10542]

yes, just different name

[Mike10542]

Plenty of senators have been using it. They like the constitutional option name better because it reflects the fact that they are restoring the constitution and what the founders intended for nominations. I think it is a lot better than a term that pretty much means you are blowing up the Senate.

[infidel29]

"Advise and consent" applies for all Presidential appointees, but as others have said, I believe Frist would hold the option for judicial appointees. If the dems continue to hold Bolton back, I believe the President would recess appoint him.

That makes Bolton the UN ambassador until the elections in '06. Bush could then re-nominate him to serve a whole term.

[planekT]

I believe that a change in the rules for cloture, which currently call for 60 votes to end debate, may only apply to judicial nominations. Frist objected to the rule at the beginning of this session of congress, and his objection remains until this session is closed and the rule can be changed with a simple majority vote (51 votes).

I could be wrong about that though. Hopefully some freeper can clarify as to whether to rule Frist objected to only applied to judicial nominee's, or was rather a broad objection on having to have 60 votes to end debate on any nominee of the President.

It's a good question. I'd like to hear a definitive answer on it myself.