ConfirmThem

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

Although muddled on his vision of the traditions of the Senate, Mr. Warner does implicitly understand how the nomination and confirmation process is supposed to work.

...there's a constitutional mandate that the president is obligated to pick people for the court, and that the Senate should render the advise and consent process fairly under the Constitution....The filibuster is a situation that I think directly confronts the president's constitutional obligations. (Richmond Times-Dispatch)

The Senator is correct that nominating judges is primarily the President's prerogative and that a minority of the Senate should not be able block nominees by preventing the majority from acting. An illustrative analogy: When the President refuses to act on a bill sent to him by the legislature, the bill typically becomes law automatically. The President has a constitutional right to exercise a check on the legislature's power by using the veto; but when he refuses to use that check, the power over legislation reverts solely to the legislature. Similarly, the Senate has a constitutional right to exercise a check on the power of the President to name judges to the bench; but when they refuse to exercise that check by invoking a filibuster, the power should revert back solely to the President and the nominees should take office if the system of checks and balances were reciprocal. Why, then, wasn't such a provision written into the Constitution? The framers never imagined that the Senate would abrogate its responsibility to act on nominations!