If this is the first time this type of filibuster has been used–is the term nuclear option new as well. And is this an executive branch option or who imposes it?
[quote]sasquatch wrote:
If this is the first time this type of filibuster has been used–is the term nuclear option new as well. And is this an executive branch option or who imposes it? [/quote]
The ‘nuclear option’ was a term coined by the dems to cast a derogatory light on changing senate rules. It’s a new term, but really means nothing.
The executive branch has nothing to do with amending senate rules. Basically, a meeting is called by the Senate Majority Leader for the urpose of changing the rules of the Senate. The filibuster itself is a product of changing senate rules.
[quote]sasquatch wrote:
BB
Am I clear in thinking the ‘nuclear option’ is lowering the majority needed to confirm?[/quote]
Technically, “nuclear option” is the term given to the Senate’s use of one obscure parliamentary procedure to defeant another parliamentary procedure – the gist of it is that the Senate can use one parliamentary rule to avoid the use of the filibuster w/r/t changing its internal rules, and thus use a simple majority to make a rule that would disallow the use of the filibuster w/r/t judicial appointees.
Yes, it really is that exciting.
[quote]sasquatch wrote:
If this is the first time this type of filibuster has been used–is the term nuclear option new as well. And is this an executive branch option or who imposes it? [/quote]
Yes, the term “nuclear option” is new – I believe it was coined during Bush’s first term when this option was first discussed (thought it wasn’t tried with a smaller Senatorial majority).
rainjack is right – it’s just a Senatorial procedure thing, though technically the executive branch could be somewhat involved, as VP Cheney could introduce it and make a ruling as President of the Senate, and also could vote on it in case of a tie.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
rainjack is right – it’s just a Senatorial procedure thing, though technically the executive branch could be somewhat involved, as VP Cheney could introduce it and make a ruling as President of the Senate, and also could vote on it in case of a tie.[/quote]
But his involvement would be as the President of The Senate - not as a member of the executive branch. Much like his tie breaking capacity, it is certainly in full support of the President’s wishes but I don’t know that you could really say that the executive branch is involved in the biblical sense of the word.
You are correct sir. I was just making a technical point that the VP would be there.
But FYI, picturing Dick Cheney involved “Biblically” with something involving Harry Reid isn’t a good mental image.
Ok, first Rethugs coined “nuclear”. I believe it was Trent Lott who is given general credit for it. Apparently “nuclear” doesn’t poll well, so now they’re changing it to “constitutional” (still not polling well). Of course as established in the real world, it’s not unconstitutional to filibuster! It is constitutional for the senate to est. its own rules. Sen. Rule 31 makes it clear that a nominee is not guaranteed an up or down vote. And the ONLY thing radical are the judges being blocked (Good!). What would be unprecedented would be a majority party ignoring senate rules just because they feel like it. To succeed they’d have to pre-empt senate rules, because a rule change itself needs a 2/3 majority. The reality would be that the majority could just ignore their own senate rules. All this to pacify Dobson, and his pack of constitution haters. Go FRISTY! (please dear god let him win the GOP nomination, or should I be cheering for Santorum? Ah the face of today’s conservative party!)
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
But FYI, picturing Dick Cheney involved “Biblically” with something involving Harry Reid isn’t a good mental image.[/quote]
I know there is a really witty retort for this, but I just got out of a board meeting and my brain is only hitting on about 2 cylinders.
[quote]100meters wrote:
Ok, first Rethugs coined “nuclear”. I believe it was Trent Lott who is given general credit for it. Apparently “nuclear” doesn’t poll well, so now they’re changing it to “constitutional” (still not polling well). Of course as established in the real world, it’s not unconstitutional to filibuster! It is constitutional for the senate to est. its own rules. Sen. Rule 31 makes it clear that a nominee is not guaranteed an up or down vote. And the ONLY thing radical are the judges being blocked (Good!). What would be unprecedented would be a majority party ignoring senate rules just because they feel like it. To succeed they’d have to pre-empt senate rules, because a rule change itself needs a 2/3 majority. The reality would be that the majority could just ignore their own senate rules. All this to pacify Dobson, and his pack of constitution haters. Go FRISTY! (please dear god let him win the GOP nomination, or should I be cheering for Santorum? Ah the face of today’s conservative party!)[/quote]
Get all your shots in while you can 100M - the Taxocrats about to get nuked by the “Rethugs”. It won’t be pretty watching Harry “where’s my nutsack” Reid do his best Tom Daschle imitation and cry on national TV - but I’ll buy tickets and pop some popcorn.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Get all your shots in while you can 100M - the Taxocrats about to get nuked by the “Rethugs”. It won’t be pretty watching Harry “where’s my nutsack” Reid do his best Tom Daschle imitation and cry on national TV - but I’ll buy tickets and pop some popcorn.[/quote]
Frist = slave to Dobson = no nutsack
Reid = 100meters getting his s.s. check = big enough nutsack for me.
Reid > Frist
Is that all it takes to buy you off - a promise of a S.S. check?
I’ll tell you where Reid’s scrotum is - it’s in Pelosi’s purse.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Is that all it takes to buy you off - a promise of a S.S. check?
[/quote]
I would get into how Reid has got some balls, but I’m looking pretty gay enough from my defenses in the gay thread…
[quote]100meters wrote:
Ok, first Rethugs coined “nuclear”. I believe it was Trent Lott who is given general credit for it. Apparently “nuclear” doesn’t poll well, so now they’re changing it to “constitutional” (still not polling well). Of course as established in the real world, it’s not unconstitutional to filibuster! It is constitutional for the senate to est. its own rules. Sen. Rule 31 makes it clear that a nominee is not guaranteed an up or down vote. And the ONLY thing radical are the judges being blocked (Good!). What would be unprecedented would be a majority party ignoring senate rules just because they feel like it. To succeed they’d have to pre-empt senate rules, because a rule change itself needs a 2/3 majority. The reality would be that the majority could just ignore their own senate rules. All this to pacify Dobson, and his pack of constitution haters. Go FRISTY! (please dear god let him win the GOP nomination, or should I be cheering for Santorum? Ah the face of today’s conservative party!)[/quote]
How precisely can Senate Rule 31 be interpreted as overcoming the Presidential Appointments Power?
Okay, after rereading Article II, section 2, paragraph two of the US constitution it explicitly gives the president the power to pick and choose officers of the US:
“shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States…”
It then goes on to say (and correct me if I am misintrpreting this) that the congress shall decide the appropriatness of the the power given to the presidnet on these matters:
“but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.”
It does not clearly state what inferior officers are or if it was intended to mean that the inferior officers are any appointee lower than the president himself. So does this give the senate a right to “object” to his nominee and exercise any rule they may have in accordance with established paliamentary procedure?
I’m looking in he constitution for where the senate gets its advise and consent pwers–please help me out here I’m not finding it. If it is not explicitly stated where is it interpreted from? It seems to me that the only thing standing in the way of the advise and consent rule is their own procedural rules–which are theirs to make and follow.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
That’s OK. You specifically used the “changing the rules while playing the game” example from the Laurence Tribe article I provided and critiqued without crediting him, but I’ll forgive your plagiarism since I am just happy you decided to read something on-topic to the issue.
[/quote]
No this was a belief I had before I read that article–believe me I don’t make it a point to go to Harvard websites to research constitutional analysis–perhaps fields of study that are more intersting to me (theoretical physics, pottery, basketweaving, sixteeth century roof textiles, etc) not law.
LIFTICVS:
Article II, Section 2 basically lays out all the enumerated powers of the President. Any other powers he has stem from the first sentence of Section 1, Clause 1, which says: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America[.]” or from specific limitations on the powers granted to the other branches (like the veto).
Here’s the entirety of Article II, Section 2:
Section. 2.
Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
Clause 3: The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
OK, now let’s cut that back to just Clause 2 and take a closer look at it:
Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: [i]but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.[/i]
So let’s break that down into a language that everyone here can easily understand.
The President has the power, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint a bunch of named offices, and some other offices that aren’t named. That’s the first part, which I highlighted in bold.
After the colon, there is a second part, which I denoted with bold and italics. That part says that both houses of Congress, acting together, can grant the President the sole power to appoint any of those unnamed other officers, (“such inferior Officers”) without the advice and consent of the Senate. But note that Congress cannot remove the advice and consent power with respect to the named offices – only “such inferior Officers.”
So how does this apply to our question at hand? Glad you asked.
Appellate court judges fall into the category of “and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law…” - otherwise known in the post-colon clause as “such inferior Officers.” So the President can appoint these officers, subject to the advice and consent of the Senate.
Now, Congress, acting as a whole, could remove the Senate’s duty to advise and consent, and make appointing appellate court justices the President’s sole prerogative – but it hasn’t done that yet.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
That’s OK. You specifically used the “changing the rules while playing the game” example from the Laurence Tribe article I provided and critiqued without crediting him, but I’ll forgive your plagiarism since I am just happy you decided to read something on-topic to the issue.
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
No this was a belief I had before I read that article–believe me I don’t make it a point to go to Harvard websites to research constitutional analysis–perhaps fields of study that are more intersting to me (theoretical physics, pottery, basketweaving, sixteeth century roof textiles, etc) not law.[/quote]
A wise policy. That stuff will rot your brain.
Luckily that was posted on a Princeton website… (though I’m guessing you wouldn’t find that an improvement). And it’s pretty well filtered into (or maybe it was lifted out of?) Democratic talking points on the subject anyway, so it was pretty well in the public domain.
Boston,
Maximvs adds: “I don’t really think you are arrogant–just out of touch with the average uneducated person.”
You have a lot of nerve, Boston, getting book learnin’ and whatnot.
I have read this debate for several pages and it brings to mind the Randy Johnson fastball that hit the wayward bird near homeplate.
In addition to my previous post, I want to focus on a specific issue you raised:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
It does not clearly state what inferior officers are or if it was intended to mean that the inferior officers are any appointee lower than the president himself. So does this give the senate a right to “object” to his nominee and exercise any rule they may have in accordance with established paliamentary procedure?
I’m looking in he constitution for where the senate gets its advise and consent pwers–please help me out here I’m not finding it. If it is not explicitly stated where is it interpreted from? It seems to me that the only thing standing in the way of the advise and consent rule is their own procedural rules–which are theirs to make and follow.[/quote]
The Senate has the duty to “advise and consent” the President on his nominees. This is the whole Senate.
In the clause immediately preceding the one focusing on appointments, the Constitution assigns the Senate the same “advise and consent” role with respect to treaties. But in this case the Constitution provides that it must be a supermajority – specifically 2/3 – of Senators present that must approve.
So the absence of a supermajority requirement in the following clause regarding appointments should be understood to mean a normal approval procedure, not a supermajority vote requirement.
Letting a Senate procedural rule establish a de facto supermajority approval requirement of 61 Senators would amount to allowing the Senate, by setting a rule of parliamentary procedure, to increase the Constitutional approval threshold on the President’s Appointment Power. And that is Unconstitutional.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
No this was a belief I had before I read that article–believe me I don’t make it a point to go to Harvard websites to research constitutional analysis–perhaps fields of study that are more intersting to me (theoretical physics, pottery, basketweaving, sixteeth century roof textiles, etc) not law.[/quote]
This is an awesome argument. “I don’t have any idea what I am talking about, I form beliefs based on vague feelings and things I heard on TV. If you give me a point-by-point breakdown and counterargument to everything you say I’m going to simply not read it and continue on and on. Only after fifteen replies am I going to take the time to read the appropriate bit in the Constitution that you’ve already posted. Oh, and I didn’t look into any snooty HARVARD analyses like you did. I only read Berkeley’s Student Newspaper The Limpwristed Manhole, and my favorite quarterly magazine Basket Weaving for Physics Undergraduates.”
I love it.