|
The filibuster is not going away. What is going away is the use of the practice to prevent up or down votes on nominations, not legislation. This is the first time that a filibuster has been used to prevent a nomination from coming to an up or down vote.
To quote a Federalist Paper, written by Thomas Jefferson -
"It will be the office of the President to nominate, and, with the advice
and consent of the Senate, to appoint. There will, of course, be no
exertion of choice on the part of the Senate. They may defeat one choice of
the Executive, and oblige him to make another; but they cannot themselves
choose, they can only ratify or reject the choice of the President."
It seems pretty clear that the intention of advise and consent is to ratify or reject. They are not to have a choice in whom is brought up for nomination. By refusing to bring up for a vote, they are in effect, making a choice in whom is brought up for confirmation - or rather who is not brought up for confirmation.
I am amused by all the "sanctity of the senate" crap being spewed forth. Harry Reid referred to this as "illegal". Huh? First of all, never has a filibuster been used to prevent confirmation votes, but the Constitution says it is up to the Senate to make their own rules. The dems have changed them in the past (in fact, I vaguely remember in the 70s there was a 67 vote majority required to break any filibuster. They reduced it to 60.
|