Stuart Grey wrote:

Rudy Canoza wrote:

YOU, however, consistently parade your ignorance around in claiming
there is some "perversion" of it by the Senate following its rules in
determining HOW a confirmation vote is to be held.


I said it was a perversion because

Because you're stupid.


when execptions to majority rule are
intended, the constitution spells them out.

The Senate DOES hold a 50% + 1 vote on the
confirmation. But there is nothing in the Constitution
that says the Senate MAY NOT set a higher threshold.


A logical interpretation of
the powers of the VP, to cast tie breaking votes

Yes...when there are ties.


forces a rational
person to conclude that fifty-fifty splits gave his one vote the
deciding vote. (Article I Section 3, clause 4)

Right...WHEN there is an equal split (not necessarily
fifty-fifty). But the Constitution *nowhere* says that
the Senate MAY NOT set a different threshold for votes
whose threshold is not specified in the Constitution.

The Constitution MAY NOT set a threshold different than
2/3 for treaties; that threshold is explicitly stated
in the Constitution. The Senate also MAY NOT set a
threshold different from 2/3 for an amendment to the
Constitution. *Absent* any specification of what the
threshold shall be, the rational person would infer
that votes would be based on simple majority...UNLESS
the Senate adopted different rules, which the
Constitution does NOT forbid it to do.



Ergo, 50% + 1 is intended by the constitution.

No. That is a wild and fanciful leap. ALL that is
intended is that IF there is a tie in the Senate, then
the VP gets to break the tie. That's all it says.



Not being a rational person, you don't get it.

I do get it. Being a stupid person, you don't get it.



The point being that the constitution does not allow the Senate to hold
up the vote.

It most certainly DOES allow it, because it doesn't
forbid it.


The constitution is above Senate rules. If the president
appoints, they MUST vote.

No. You simply are wrong. There is nothing in the
Constitution that says *anything* about how and when
the Senate must hold a vote. You are wrong.


If the filibuster prevents a vote from being held, that is in NO WAY
in "conflict" with the Constitution. You simply are wrong to assert
there is one, and your error is based on your appalling ignorance of
the Constitution.