SI
SI
discoversearch

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 (492443)11/14/2003 9:56:53 AM
From: Oeconomicus  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
Wayne, my point is that only the senate can make senate rules. To say that a filibuster is unconstitutional is just plain wrong, as is saying that using senate rules to withhold consent to a nomination is unconstitutional. The senate is, in fact, actively withholding its consent, not failing to fulfill its constitutional role.

So, again, it comes down to whether senate rules should be changed regarding filibusters of presidential nominees. And that's a much tougher question. After all, the whole point of filibusters is to prevent a bare majority (as opposed to a super-majority) from imposing its will on the people.

The problem, IMO, is that the whole advice and consent process has become so partisan - a game of obstructionism, misrepresentation and attempted destruction of the careers and reputations of good people all for the sake of thumbing your nose at the president. The logical extension of this is that the next president who doesn't have 60 senators on his side will spend his/her first two years or more just trying to set up his administration. The administration will be left in a completely disfunctional state with important leadership jobs sitting vacant. It amounts to a power grab on the part of 40 senators to seize the power of appointment from the president.

Hmm. I think I just talked myself into support for the rule change. ;-)