"Stuart Grey" wrote in message
...
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.
The constitution gives the Senate the power to define its own rules.
The constitution requires that there be a simple majority to affirm the
appointment of judges.

Oops. There is no Constitutional requirement
that I have found that the vote for anything other than treaties and
overturning vetoes has any numerical or percentile requirement.
Specifically, I found no mention of a quantity needed to approve
a judge. Perhaps I missed a paragraph...

The Senate could make a rule saying that it takes 100%
concurrence for a political appointment by the President to
be approved. Or of a single Senator, or (and this IS listed
in the Constitution) that the President can appoint "inferior
Officers," however that is defined (hard to see a Supreme
Court justice as an inferior Officer, but the phrase is
otherwise undefined).

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

The Constitution. But I fail to find a conflict...

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

Interesting logic. Flawed, like all your logic, but interesting.

Let's try your logic out, EVEN ASSUMING your "simple majority"
restriction:

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

The Senate makes a rule concerning how matters are brought
up for a vote.

The Constitution doesn't make any mention of how a vote is called.

Therefore, there is no conflict with the supreme law of the Constitution.

Holding up the appointment of a judge is clearly Constitutional, if
it follows the rules of the Senate.

Dan