Judicial Appointment Armageddon

"There is nothing in the Constitution requiring the Senate to "confirm or reject appointments by a simple majority vote." The Appointments Clause of the Constitution requires the consent of the Senate before judicial nominees are appointed. The Rules of Proceedings Clause gives the Senate the power to determine the method of consent. It doesn't matter how many times Frist says it: There is no requirement for the Senate to confirm or reject a nomination. No vote means no consent: And that's OK. "

The above "The Nation" article by Judd Legum and Christy Harvey really explains point-counterpoint why the Republicans incessant whine about why Bush's 10 extremist (out of 214) judges nominated to the Federal judiciary do not get an up or down vote in the Senate is really just political posturing. At face value, it sounds fair enough, but at the heart of the issue is whether the majority should be able to dominate the minority. And in the Senate, the Constitution is clear that that should not happen. If this were the House, parliamentary procedure and House rules do not allow the side with fewer votes to hold up business because the Framers set aside the House as the arm of Congress where the larger states would be able to throw their weight around, in a manner of speaking. Thats why the number of reps you have is tied directly to state population. But, in the Senate, rules are different. Each state gets two, count em two, Senators. No matter what. And that was to allow in our federal style of government the little states to be able to speak up and not allow the biggies to bully them around. Likewise, in the House, the side with the majority of votes is always allowed to push through its legislation and debate is limited to a certain amount of time. But in the Senate, many things die in committee or when they reach the floor can be stalled by a Senator speaking for hours- or even days-upon end. And, filibusters, are "a legitimate Congressional privilege." So, I hope the American people do not take this issue at face value and actually pay attention to the debate. I know civics and government aren't exactly the areas of expertise for most Americans, but this is one instance where knowing a little bit more pays off quite a bit.