Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wayners who wrote (492399)	11/14/2003 12:07:28 AM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

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.