Stuart Grey wrote:

Rudy Canoza wrote:

Stuart Grey wrote:


If it wasn't for the fact that a minority of Democrats in the Senate
have found an (unconstitutional) way to block judges, I might agree.



There's nothing unconstitutional about it.


The Constitution clearly says it is the highest law in the land.

I don't think the Constitution says that of itself, but
no matter; it is held to be.


The constitution gives the Senate the power to define its own rules.

Right!


The constitution requires that there be a simple majority to affirm the
appointment of judges.

No, it does not:

Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution says in
part that the president shall have the power to
nominate and appoint judges "by and with the advice
and consent" of the Senate.

While the same clause requires a two-thirds Senate
vote to ratify treaties, it sets no specific
requirement for judicial confirmation.

That suggests that it takes a simple majority of 51
votes to confirm a judge, which has been the
historic practice. But some legal analysts say that
nothing in the Constitution prevents the Senate from
setting a higher standard.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0425/p01s01-uspo.html


The Constitution does *not* spell out the size of the
majority required.

Understand that the Senate has *not* said that the
confirmation of a judge or justice requires 60 votes.
What they have said is that 60 votes are required to
end a filibuster. The filibuster keeps a vote from
being held on the nominee. It may have the *effect* of
making the confirmation require 60 votes, but those
votes are not on the confirmation itself. Note that
five principled Deomcratic senators, believing it
important to hold an up-or-down vote on the nominee,
could conceivably vote to end the filibuster, then vote
against the nominee.


If the senate makes a rule that is in conflict with the constitution,
which is supreme? The senate rule, or the constitution.

The constitution is supreme, ergo, the senate rule is unconstitional.

The Senate rule is *not* in conflict with the
Constitution. The Constitution does not say anything
about forcing the Senate to hold a vote at all. WHEN
AND IF they hold a vote, then the prevailing historical
practice is that a nominee is confirmed with a 50% + 1
vote.

The only thing demonstrated with your slovenly "qed"
was your ignorance: of the Constitution, and of logic.