If 59% don’t want the appointment, then they vote to reject. I’m just saying that the appointment should go through unless a majority vote to reject.
Not at all. But your guys think the only advice appropriate is “Fuck off, Mr. President”.
Have a discussion, vote, majority wins.
Now, how do *you *rationalize the absolute minority veto?
A Republican POTUS couldn’t get the Republican Senate to consent to any of his BATF appointments for two years. What could Obama possibly offer beyond his head on a plate?
First, only the Senate can define what it means to be in recess and what it means to be in session. SCOTUS offered tens days as a common sense approach, but final word can only come from the Senate.
Second, it is the duty of the Senate to shut down the executive branch of federale gov’t if said executive branch willfully ignores the laws. For those who don’t live in the United States, we do have another 50 executive branches of gov’t who are perfectly able to conduct the business at hand.
The Senate knew who Hussain el’Obama was going to appoint. So instead of recessing, they opened for 30 seconds every third day to stop it. That’s their job. If the Senate approves of a nominee, but can’t get the vote in before vacation … they’re going on vacation and the president gets his recess appointment.
But only three days? That’s right out. So, where’s the bright line between 3 and 10?
Kindly point out the section of the Constitution which explains that.
Oh. Never mind.
This is either excellent parody or really awful political analysis.
You’re the one who is saying that refusing to consent or hold a vote is unconstitutional. Feel free to point out where that is in the constitution - or keep ducking your own statements.
The senate sets it’s own rules on what is required for cloture. If they wanted to, they could hold a vote with a simple majority and confirm with the same. Until they do so, a minority of at least 41 with the current rules can vote against cloture for any or no reason whatsoever.
Independent of that, it is perfectly consistent with the constitution for the majority or minority party to vote negatively on any and every single nominee for any reason, or no reason. There is no constitutional or other requirement that the they vote based on merits.
If 51 senators voted together, regardless of party, they could prevent any presidential nominees from being confirmed. They could do it because the President’s first name starts with a consonant. They could do it because it’s an even numbered year. They could do it for any reason, or no reason. That is perfectly consistent with the constitution.
It’s not in the letter, but in the *spirit *- the Constitution describes how the government operates, not how it is shut down. IOW, you understand that, so don’t be silly.
And they’ve been forced to do just that, by the minority’s refusal to act responsibly. But the minority veto remains, and is still doing damage.
Thanks for the lecture about what the Senate rules are, but there’s really no need.
Is “hey, does the Constitution prohibit that?” now the only acceptable measure of the validity of a legislative act?
So when the sequence is like this:
Your first response is:
But now you’ve changed your tune. Here we have:
Thanks for recognizing your error. That’s the first step towards recovery. Next would be to not make statements that are factually untrue.
Not the only acceptable measure, but it should be the very first. Can you think of any measure of validity that would come before that?
No, but there’s no use explaining.
What do you think a sense of responsibility consists of? :rolleyes:
They can’t vote to reject if the vote is filibustered!
As per usual - this non-sequitur doesn’t make sense. You’ll have to clarify what you are actually asking if you’d like a response. Maybe if you spent less time rolling your eyes you’d be able to craft a more coherent question.
Bone may be correct that filibustering to derail an entire administration by refusing to confirm any appointments might not be able to meet a constitutional challenge. IMHO, it’s against the spirit of the constitution, but my opinion and $2 will get you a cup of coffee. It’s not being challenged in court, which corroborates his claim.
Regardless, it’s not how I think our country should run, and I’m in favor of whatever it takes to change it. Good luck with that, though! Fortunately, the simplest fix is one that only takes a majority in the Senate. If they’re smart, in addition to making the rule change with a simple majority, they’ll make it so it takes a supermajority to change the rules in the future.
Congress seems to be blind to the fact that the tricks they use will be used by the other party when the tide turns. Of course, having used a trick doesn’t keep them from crying foul when the other side does the same thing.
Sigh.
Bone, I said there’s no use explaining, so you didn’t really need to confirm it.
Learjeff, it was said at the time Reid eliminated the rule for appointments that, if the Republicans like the filibuster so much, they’re welcome to restore it at such time as they come into power again. Don’t bet on it, though.
Of course! (doh) No need for a supermajority. Ignorance fought, thanks!
Of course not, but that’s not the point. I don’t see anyone defending this appointment blocking on the merits (except watchwolf, who may or may not be serious.)
Joe Biden as POTUS? 
The voters chose their representatives in the U.S. House, the U.S. Senate, and the Whitehouse.
There is no rule that states that both houses and the WH must agree on everything OR anything.
If a Senator, Congressman, or the President wants legislation passed into law, they’re going to have to reach some kind of compromise/deal with several other elected members of the Legislative and/or Executive branch of government. That’s the way things work.
Those who repeatedly proclaim that because a President was elected by the people means that either/both House must do the President’s bidding have been repeatedly disappointed by reality.
Are you going to keep repeating the same vague claims over and over?
I don’t believe anybody said that either House must do the president’s bidding. But I think it’s reasonable to assume that the Senate perform its duties. “Advice and consent” means to most reasonable people that the Senate will either confirm the president’s nominees or reject them with reasons that would come out in the confirmation hearings. It does not mean that the minority party should misuse the Senate rules to avoid bringing any nominees up for a vote no matter who they are, merely because they don’t like who the president is. If the rules allow this, then the rules are an ass and need to be changed. There’s a difference between separation of powers and refusal to govern.