ConfirmThem

By Lorie Byrd Posted in Senate Rules — Comments () / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Dr. Steven Taylor writes at Poliblog about checks and balances and the filibuster.

The claim that checks and balances is under assault is ridiculous. The principle of checks and balances has nothing to do with parties, majorities and minorities, or internal congressional procedures: it has to do with inter-branch relations. The President nominates, the Senate confirms or rejects.

The purpose is to keep the President from appointing cronies or the unqualified to the bench (and other positions). The process allows the collective will of the Senate to be known on the matter.

And how do we determine the collective will of the Senate? That would be by majority vote.

How, then, do members, especially of the minority party, affect said majority vote? That would be by debate and persuasion.

If they cannot persuade enough of their fellow Senators to vote a particular way on a particular candidate, then they lose. Such is the timeworn tradition of legislative politics ...

... The filibuster is not (not, not, NOT) part of the checks and balances system by definition: anything that takes places within a given branch cannot be considered part of checks and balances.

Further: the right to unlimited debate does not come from the Constitution. At best it can be traced back to Senate rules in 1806 ...

... Further: there is nothing in the Constitution that enshrines a super-majority for judicial nominations, and nothing in the Constitution that requires the right of a Senator to talk as long as he or she wants. There is nothing that prevents it either, of course. Rather, as I have pointed out before, the right to set the internal rules of the chambers of Congress belongs to those chambers. As such, the so-called “nuclear option� is wholly constitutional–as is filibustering judicial nominees, if the rules of the Senate allow it. Technically, the Senate could require unaminous consent to confirm nominees, if the body so desired. The point is: the majority of the Senate sets these rules. So we are not talking about consitutional issues here, nor about sacrosanct procedures laid down by the Founders.

Read the whole thing.