Wayne, the problem is the senate makes its own rules - the constitution says nothing about how the senate should exercise its power of "advice and consent", much less whether a filibuster can be used to prevent a floor vote.
Now, if you're suggesting the constitution requires them to actually vote on nominees in a timely manner (or ever), then it seems to me that question could be easily answered by the supreme court.
So why not take it to them?
Because the constitution doesn't say that refusing to vote isn't allowed and one could quite reasonably argue (actually, it seems obvious) that refusing to vote is, in fact, a withholding of consent. In any case, the court certainly isn't going to dictate the senate's internal procedural rules as that would certainly be unconstitutional.
So, we're down to whether the senate should change or clarify the filibuster rule. But if you change it now (as several senators have suggested), then that tool for blocking nominees is gone for both parties. Be careful what you wish for? OTOH, the GOP hasn't ever needed it to block court nominees before, so maybe they'll never miss it.
JMO. |
