tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17206839.post4131284813801040494..comments2023-09-09T09:26:22.175-04:00Comments on Andrew Samwick's Blog: SCOTUS NominationsAndrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13514024573333057559noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17206839.post-80906762561558411362005-07-08T13:12:00.000-04:002005-07-08T13:12:00.000-04:00'Up the ante by nominating someone from an und...'Up the ante by nominating someone from an underrepresented group on the Court, like a woman or ethnic minority.'<br><br>That won't stop the Democrats. It's all about fund raising, for which they need a bogeyman. But, you're correct that Bush holds all the cards. As the first Monday in October approaches without the seat filled because of a filibuster, the Dems look foolish, because a recess appt. will fill it.Patrick Sullivanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14948365865741313524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17206839.post-80408910042823307732005-07-08T14:05:00.000-04:002005-07-08T14:05:00.000-04:00recess appointments are actually written into the ...<i>recess appointments are actually written into the Constitution. Filibusters aren't.</i><br><br>Yes and no. <br><br>Yes, because it's true that the Constitution doesn't specifically refer to filibusters. <br><br>Much more relevantly, no. Why? Because (i) everyone knows the Senate has the right to refuse to consent, and (ii) the <a href="http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html" rel="nofollow">Constitution </a>explicitly leaves it to the houses of Congress to determine their own rules (It's in Article I, Section 5, Clause 2): "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings". The Senate's rules allow for a filibuster. This is one of the reason that the Republican attempts to call their nuclear threat the "Constitutional option" have been so ridiculous.<br><br>One interesting thing I heard recently is that recess appointments to the Court are not at all precedented. According to <a href="http://www.c-span.org/questions/week156.asp" rel="nofollow">this article</a>, "Since 1791, 15 Supreme Court Justices began their tenure with a recess appointment, the most recent being Justice Potter Stewart in 1958." I heard recently that Earl Warren was also one (though he was ultimately confirmed, I believe).Jonah B. Gelbachnoreply@blogger.com