Maybe yes, maybe no. As Orrin Hatch wrote
at the time:
The Constitution gives the Senate authority to
determine its procedural rules. More than a century ago, however,
the Supreme Court unanimously recognized the obvious maxim
that those rules may not "ignore constitutional
restraints." The Constitution explicitly requires a
supermajority vote for such things as trying impeachments or
overriding a presidential veto; it does not do so for confirming
nominations. Article II, Section 2, even mentions ratifying
treaties and confirming nominees in the very same sentence,
requiring a supermajority for the first but not for the second.
Twisting Senate rules to create a confirmation supermajority
undermines the Constitution. As Senator Joseph Lieberman once
argued, it amounts to "an amendment of the Constitution by rule of
the U.S. Senate."
In fact, organizations like Judicial
Watch were in the process of preparing briefs in the DC federal
court before the Gang of 14 stepped in. It's true that the courts
normally frown on entering into this sort of legislative
squabbling, but you never know!
topics:
Constitution, Law, Supreme Court, NATO
