Supermajority? Bah!!

There's been a lot of hullaballo (I've always wanted to use that term) about the tricksy little Democratses use of the filibuster to try for all intents and purposes to require more than a simple 51% majority for judicial nominations. The 60-vote requirement to end filibusters is not a provision of the Constitution but rather an idiosyncratic procedural rule established by the body itself. The rules can - and often do - change at the whim of the majority when they feel like changing them - which is their perogative.

Well, Dan M over at New England Republican has done some pretty heady research and spells out the 9 times that the U.S. Constitution, either within the body of the document or in an amendment, proscribes a "supermajority" (usually two-thirds) requirement along with the specific situation. Absolutely no where is greater than a simple majority required for the advise and consent roll of the Senate in approving the President's judicial nominations. Well done, Dan.

Side note: My blogger spellchecker offers the alternative of "supremacist" to replace "supermajority". Pretty ironic considering all the opposition being trumpeted by ol' Sen. Robert "Sheets" Byrd (WV).

Posted by: Gary at 04:00 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 196 words, total size 1 kb.