"There are those that say the ends justify the means."
Yeah... *YOU* apparently! As I pointed out: YOU are the only one I'm aware of who's advocating that the RULES be IGNORED.
(All I said was, if you don't LIKE the rules, then CHANGE 'EM LEGALLY. Don't just IGNORE them illegally.)
"Simply stated. for 214 years the Constitution was interpreted to mean one thing, You are now advocating that it means another."
Quit lying! I never said that and you know it. (You can't find ANY post where I've said such a thing.)
"There is no number for judicial nominations that is relevant other than majority vote. not 52 1/2%, 55%, 60%, 61 7/8%, 67%, 75% or 80%. The only relevant percentage is 51%."
Please show that to me in the official Senate rules. Your self-serving assumptions don't carry the same weight as the official rules do....
As you should know, the US Constitution granted to the Congress the power and authority to set it's own rules of behavior --- as the Congress (House and Senate) as done ever since.
Only the Senate as the power to confirm or deny Presidential appointments, and currently the OFFICIAL RULES OF THE SENATE (as I'm sure the official Senate Parlimentarian --- a good solid Republican steeped in years of study of the institution's rule book --- will be happy to confirm) state plainly:
Cutting off debate (cloture) requires a 2/3 majority vote.
Furthermore, it requires a 3/5 majority vote to CHANGE THE RULES OF THE SENATE.
(PS --- only the Supreme Court of the United States has final authority in interpreting 'what the Constitution means'. If you think someone is acting un-constitutionally, then take it to federal court, because only they can decide that issue... but i'm rather SURE that the SC would have NO PROBLEM with the congress setting it's own rules of operation, as per usual. They never have before in all our history.) |
