It was created by passage of a bill by both houses and signed by the President. The Republicans had every opportunity to present their objections and the reasons for them during that process, and they failed. What gives them the right to prevent the will of the people, via their elected representatives, from being done after the fact?
Warren’s “not entirely unqualified”? 
I suspect you’re using *extreme *and *Democrat *as synonyms, btw.
I never do anymore. It is simply not available, is it?
The Constitution doesn’t say that the President can appoint anyone he pleases or anyone of his own persuasion. He must do so with the advice and consent of the Senate. If the Senate has rules that state that 60 senators must agree, then that’s what advice and consent means. I’m sure that there is one person out of 310 million in this country that the President and 60 senators can agree upon. It only doesn’t happen because presidents have stubbornly tried to hold on to the old, but established idea that as long as their preferred choice converts oxygen into carbon dioxide, then the Senate should just rubber stamp.
This is just the latest volley in that old power struggle, but I think that more Senate involvement in the process is closer to the idea that the framers had in mind.
Advise and consent, yes. Prevent, no. Why do you suppose the minority prevented Warren from being voted on at all, instead of simply voting against her and honorably accepting the result? We used to hear those guys chant “Elections have consequences”, but maybe that isn’t true anymore now that they keep losing them.
Not if the >40 minority has, as a party goal, the prevention of the office from being filled by anyone.
They shouldn’t have to support it. They should, however, have to vote on it. The refusal to hold a vote lets them look less like cowards. Let them stand up and say ‘NO’, goramm it! Let them do what they are paid to do. Why is it we cannot have a rule that the Senate has to vote when the President makes his nomination? What good does not having a vote do, except helping one party look less like pussies?
But as far as recess appointments: Yogsosoth asked up thread about whether or not having no cabinet head actually stops the department from doing it’s job, crippling their functionality. Personally, I think it would effect the politics but have little effect on the functionality. Do not all these departments have deputies that act as department in head if there is an absence? If Holder resigns, and no one takes his place under Obama, does the Department of Justice close up shop? No , the deputy acts as Secretary. (it does not help my point at all that Deputy James Cole is himself a recess appointment)
Why can’t the Senate show it’s lack of consent by refusing to vote on a particular nominee? Part of the Senate rules (until recently) was a provision requiring 60 votes in order to decide whether to give a majority vote on a nominee. That’s just as much of advising and consenting as anything. I mean, they didn’t vote on me, right? I think that I am qualified yet no senator nor the President even thought of me. Why is Warren deserving of a vote just because the President likes her?
Again, it’s a relatively new idea that the clause implies that the President appoints and then the Senate votes up or down. The text says “by and with”
[QUOTE=COTUS]
[The President]…by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint …Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States…
[/QUOTE]
emphasis added. It looks like there is to be a cooperate effort; not a you name someone and we must vote yes or no, and if no, you try again. Why can’t it be “we don’t like that person at all so we’re not going to vote”?
I don’t want a beat a dead horse, but the Republicans have been pretty straight-forward about their refusal to cooperative with this President on anything.
It is their mantra.
Having trouble with the meaning of “minority”, aren’t we?
Which is the fucking topic of the thread. It’s right there in the title.
Do you disagree that the painless filibuster permits a minority veto on anything it wants to? Because those are the facts; that it does and it has made a reflexive habit of doing so.
Not because he “likes her”. :rolleyes: Because he’s the President and he has nominated for a federal position as the Constitution requires him to do. :rolleyes:
And the majority has indeed done so.
You are very confused if you think the topic is the Constitutional executive power of appointment, and not the existence and abuse of the minority veto.
That isn’t the reason, is it?
Damn …
As much as we pay them, they should never be in recess again!
So rather than allow the minority to obstruct one appointment or bill or amendment the majority should give them the floor so that no business at all can be conducted in the Senate? “Oh please Br’er Fox, whatever you do, please don’t throw me into the briar patch.” Obstruction on steroids isn’t the answer to the problem of obstruction.
How?
The BATF example clearly shows that the Senate is not interested in confirming anyone. If a Republican POTUS can’t get his nominee confirmed by his own party then we are obviously past the point where Senators are basing their objections on the qualifications of the candidates. Instead we are looking at a Senate which is using the consent process as an end run around the POTUS’ powers of appointment.
The key is that it would become much rarer a tactic, and with real political/electoral consequences for those using it. No filibuster has lasted indefinitely, has it?
Change parliamentary rules (it happens all the time) to limit the 60-vote rule to actual floor debates. Also eliminate the blue-slip rule (that isn’t even a rule, just a fucking custom), although that’s a secondary issue.
Be that as it may, it’s consistent with the constitution. Would you support amendment to change that?
Standing filibusters don’t go on forever because the majority sees the futility and moves on to other business. If there weren’t at least 40 senators supporting the filibuster the majority could win a cloture vote. It’s a lot easier for those 40+ senators to keep 2 or three of their group in the chamber at all times to keep the filibuster going than it is for the majority to keep 50 senators in the chamber at all times to maintain a quorum. This is the point I’m making. People misunderstand the burden of the filibuster. It takes much more effort by the majority than by the minority. It’s not that modern senators have become too lazy or corrupt or whatever to bother with requiring their fellows to stand up on the floor in opposition. It’s that the senators, unlike their critics, actually understand how the Senate works.
Certainly the Senate can (and just did) change procedure to limit the filibuster. Or even eliminate it altogether. I hope they do (along with the blue slips). But no matter what happens the standing filibuster won’t return to relevance. Any part of the filibuster rules that are maintained will lead to silent filibusters because the only way to make the minority stand and argue indefinitely without obstructing other business would be to continue to somehow, somewhere conduct that business while they are still arguing. And that would mean giving up the assumption that debate is meaningful, that thoughtful arguments might move other senators. That is, the very justification for allowing senators unlimited debate in the first place. The Senate is far too invested in its self-image as “the world’s greatest deliberative body” to give that up.
That would effectively allow a minority to confirm an appointment, by filibustering for 90 days.
I like your intent, but your proposal doesn’t quite work. Got another approach?
Consistent with the letter, perhaps, but certainly not with the spirit. And it’s certainly no more consistent than the recess appointments.
I would support an amendment to codify the Senate’s role, yes.
Plenty of counterexamples. Even the longest ever failed to stop the 1957 Civil Rights Act. What would be your favorite example of a standing filibuster succeeding? :dubious:
That’s true even of the go-fuck-yourselves version that the minority now uses as an absolute veto - except that there is no amount of effort by the majority that can defeat it.
Didn’t you just claim that it moves the majority onto other things?
Better look up “cloture”.
Don’t we already know all the work is done behind the scenes, and that what happens on the floor is showcasing? That’s been the case since, well, always. Saying so won’t constitute a change.
I haven’t heard that claim made in years, have you? The facts to the contrary are too glaringly obvious.
The constitution has a lot to say about the majority winning votes. Nothing about allowing a sore-loser minority to veto them.
So, no, it isn’t.
I’m unclear what you are saying. Are you saying that the consent powers being used to block any and all nominees regardless of qualifications is not consistent with the constitution?
It certainly doesn’t seem to be consistent with the intent. Surely the framers did not intend to give a minority the power to prevent the proper functioning of the executive by gaming the constitution and parliamentary procedure.
I don’t see the problem. If the minority doesn’t like it, let them filibuster. When 90 days are up, then the appointment is confirmed. If you don’t have 51 votes to deny a confirmation, then it goes through.