Reply #7: Byrd is right, to an extent [View All]

[adwon]

There is no provision that judges be confirmed by any sort of vote in the constitution. That's the right part.

The WSJ is incorrect in thinking that letters to the White House would have any sort of effect legally. Compliance with advice and consent is determined by the Senate, as advice and consent is one of their duties. For 216 years, advice and consent has been construed as requiring a vote on judicial nominees. If the GOP wants to change this process now, they have to change the rules of the Senate in regard to the duty.

They could choose to follow the WSJ's advice and avoid the rule. The net result would be a constitutional crisis. At that moment, the Democratic party would have no reason to remain in the government because it would be evident that the GOP has no intent to obey even the forms of governance.

In a way, it would be fun to watch. Democrats could get a head start on the 2006 election by overwhelming GOP districts with visits and information. Plus, it would boost donations quite a bit.