Here is a little something that may have gone unnoticed. Seems Robert Byrd has said that the Constitution does not require a vote on judicial nominees. At least according to a piece at OpinionJournal.
"Shortly before Congress recessed for Easter vacation, here's what the Senator said on Fox's "Hannity & Colmes": "The President is all wrong when he maintains that a nominee should have an up-or-down vote. The Constitution doesn't say that. The Constitution doesn't say that that nominee shall have any vote at all. There doesn't have to even be a vote."No vote necessary? So then it would seem that a simple majority of Senators could vote on a resolution to confirm all judicial nominees?
As the Senator says, Article II of the Constitution is silent on how the Senate shall exercise its "advice and consent" power in confirming judicial nominees. For more than 200 years, however, that body has interpreted the Founders' injunction to mean that a simple majority of Senators--51 in our age--must vote to confirm. That's why we cried foul in President Bush's first term when Democrats filibustered 10 appeals-court nominees, thereby denying them an up-or-down vote on the floor--even though every candidate had the support of a bipartisan majority. A vote to end a filibuster requires a super-majority of 60 Senators.
"But now that Senator Byrd has expressed the view that the Senate doesn't have to vote at all, here's a better idea for ending the impasse over judicial nominations: Fifty-one of the 55 Republican Senators can simply send the President a letter expressing their support for his candidates. Under Mr. Byrd's Constitutional analysis, the Senate will have exercised "advice and consent" and the judges will be confirmed. "If only Frist and the Republicans had the gumption to try it! - Sailor