Great news. Republicans look at eliminating filibuster for SCOTUS nominees

Hot Air ^ | January 24, 2014 | Jazz Shaw

[Iron Munro]

[OrangeHoof]

I can see it for one reason. Should the GOP maintain the Senate in 2017 when they swear in a GOP president (we hope), then if they continue the non-filibuster “nuclear” option in that term, they can argue it isn’t out of political opportunism while flooding the courts with fresh appointments that would only need 50 votes, locking out the Dems and a few RINOs.

But it is a risky move at best.

[Amendment10]

Concern about more activist justices probably wouldn’t be as much of a concern today if state legislatures hadn’t ratified the ill-conceived 17th Amendment, foolishly giving up the voices of the state legislatures in Congress by doing so.

[rcofdayton]

Alexander and Blunt should be tarred and feathered. They are RINOs.

[Defiant]

Whatever it is, it’s better than what you can eat from the TV tray in front of your couch, hypocritically posting about your love of the Constitution while wanting Republicans not to follow it.

[skinkinthegrass]

GOP/establishment, surrenders again...pussies!

[sport]

The Republicans never used it anyway. They just voted for whoever the Democrat President nominated. It is the Democrats that uses it on the Republicans. since they are two wings of the same Party ......

[ez]

I agree. I’ll say what I yelled at Schumer during the Gonzales debacle...”The President’s nominee deserves an up or down vote.”

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

The SCOTUS, in a recent *unanimous* ruling (over the NLRB), determined that congress alone decides when it is in recess, and threw out Obama’s recess appointments. So attempting to make a recess appointment to the SCOTUS, when congress was still in session, even pro forma session, would be rejected by them as well.

Most likely, the Chief Justice would refuse to swear in or seat that person.

[depressed in 06]

Only if it is not going to take impeachment to get rid of them.

[OneWingedShark]

GOP: Surrender Masters

The GOP: Striving to make the Party-as-a-whole contain less courage than one French flag.

Yeah, your version is more succinct.

[ConservativeMind]

Can you post that reference? I am only familiar with that on spending bills.

[Defiant]

The reference for what? The advice and consent clause of the constitution? It says that the president may appoint officers of the US (i.e., agents created by law) with the advice and consent of the Senate. It also allows the President to appoint judges with the advice and consent of the Senate. Consent means, and has always meant, the approval of a majority vote of the Senate. You have to go back to the Federalist papers and early case law to confirm the meaning of "advice and consent". It means "a majority". If a Senate took the position that it would not allow votes on the President's nominees, that would be a usurpation of the President's powers to the same extent that the President's refusal to do his job, i.e., enforce the laws, is a usurpation of Congress' power to make laws.

Actually, with respect to legislation, there is no constitutional issue with Senate or House rules that require a supermajority to shut off debate. They can have their own parliamentary rules, and courts can't get involved in that. There is no obligation to pass laws, or allow votes on them. Budgets are laws, laws relating to taxing and spending. The only reason that budgets don't have filibusters is because the rules passed by both houses regarding the budgeting process forbid filibusters on budget bills.

[Sacajaweau]

The filibuster was intended for legislation...not advise and consent.