A constitutional question

[Chasstev365]

If the constitution says there needs to be 2/3 majority to confirm a Supreme Nominee in the Senate and says nothing about a filibuster, how can there be a nuclear option? Isn't what the GOP doing unconstitutional?

[unblock]

1. the constitution says the senate determines its own rules.

the senate decided to have a rule that such things don't come to the floor for a vote until it passes a cloture vote, which the senate decided needs 60 votes.


also, btw, the constitution doesn't say 2/3 majority for confirmations. it just says "advice and consent of the senate". the senate decided that that means simple majority. again, though, only after the cloture vote.

[shraby]

2. The way I read it, the 2/3 refers to treaties which is followed by a sem-colon which

indicates a new idea or rule.

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.

[PoliticAverse]

3. The Constitution doesn't require a 2/3rd vote to confirm a Supreme Court justice.

Clarence Thomas was confirmed 52-48.

[Chasstev365]

4. OK: Thank you!

[PJMcK]

5. The Constitution grants rights to each House of Congress

The House of Representatives and the Senate are allowed to create their own rules of operation. Historically, the Senate has jealously protected those rights. Times change.