As conservatives seem to be limited to three-four word phrases, the full text of the clause is:
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
It doesn't change the fact that the Constitution has no
provision for filibusters or holds on judicial nominees.
A meaningless fact. Lots of Senate rules are not in the Constitution. It doesn't say up or down vote or even mention a simple majority. It says nothing about committee hearings. It's up to the Senate to decide what constitutes "advice and consent". Not being in the Constitution doesn't mean anything other than it's not in the Constitution.
The filibuster rule isn't in the Constitution for anything that the Senate does. There's no proposal to eliminate the filibuster rule across the board.
Earlier you said: If they put a stop to this unprecedented use of the filibuster, they will be on the right side of history, the Founding Fathers, the Federalist Papers & the US Constitution.
Which Federalist Papers are you referring to? Put the relevant text up.
jttmab |
