Replies

Hatfield is wrong about the GOP leadership opposing Nixon. They were in on the scheme, and supported it. I suppose one could argue that if the Senate is in fact not a continuing body per the Nixon ruling, than any rules that purport to bind a new body would be a nullity, because they could not bind the new body. I am beginning to see some daylight here.

If the argument that filibusters are unconstitutional when applied to the executive calendar is correct, then I don't think the rules matter. Suppose the Senate passed a rule that said that the President's nominees must be unanimously approved. Nobody would dispute that it was an unconstitutional infringement on the executive branch. Nobody would argue that it was legitimate simply because the Senate had instituted the rule within the bounds of existing rules and parliamentary procedure. What the Democrats are doing now is arguably the same thing. They are effectively imposing a 60-vote super-majority on the President's nominees. The Constitution trumps the Senate's rules.