Rudy Canoza wrote:
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 says thus:

Article VI
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be
made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be
made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law
of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby,
anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary
notwithstanding.



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

That is an interesting perversion of the intent of the constitution, far
more subtle, and almost reasonable, *******ization of the intent.

Well done.

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.