Savoy: Alito Confirmation would be violation of 'advise and consent'

[Hissyspit]

requirement in Constitution. "No answers should mean no confirmation," he says.
His article is on commondreams.org:

TRUTHOUT FOCUS: Paul Savoy | Mr. Smith Comes to Washington

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/012906X.shtml

Truthout's promo: In the absence of specific answers to senators' questions about Samuel Alito's views, his confirmation would be a violation of the Constitution's Article II requirement that the Senate exercise its "Advice and Consent" function in an informed manner, according to Paul Savory.

FOR ENTIRE OP/ED PIECE, CLICK LINK

How many senators does is take to launch a filibuster? If you said 41, you'd be wrong. It takes only one. The term, filibuster, from a Dutch word meaning "pirate," describes a hallowed tradition of unlimited debate in the Senate based on the principle that any senator has the right to talk his head off for as long as he wants on any issue. That is, until at least 60 senators vote to shut him up.

- snip -

In 2002, the Supreme Court, in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765, declared that it is not only proper for a judicial candidate to express his views on disputed legal issues - the First Amendment guarantees him the right to do so. In an opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia, and joined by then-Chief Justice Rehnquist, and Justices O'Connor, Kennedy, and Thomas, the Court concluded that a Minnesota canon of judicial conduct which prohibited a candidate for judicial office from announcing his position on abortion rights and other controversial issues violated his right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment.

- snip -

To defeat a "cloture" motion to end debate, supporters of a filibuster do not actually have to gather 41 votes to defeat the motion; they merely have to persuade enough colleagues to simply abstain from voting so that filibuster opponents do not achieve the 60 votes required for cloture. For example, a 59-29 vote to end debate, with 12 senators abstaining, would not be sufficient to carry a cloture motion, and Judge Alito's nomination could not be brought to an up-or-down vote.

The abstention option provides the necessary cover for Democratic senators who do not want to participate in a filibuster, but who can be persuaded to at least refrain from denying colleagues the Senate's more than 200-year-old privilege to speak on an issue for as long as a senator wishes. Respecting that privilege is imperative when, as here, a filibuster is conducted to (1) inform the American people of their First Amendment right to know a nominee's views, and (2) honor a senator's duty under Article II to block a judicial appointment that would be unconstitutional.

[Hissyspit]

1. "Paul Savoy is a former prosecutor and professor of constitutional law,"

Attribution.

[Hissyspit]

2. I updated OP, so am kicking. n/t

[tritsofme]

3. Advice and Consent is pretty much whatever the Senate says it is.

Confirmation hearings with the nominee giving testimony are a relatively recent phenomena.

[ralps]

4. Thom Hartmann just mentioned this article. It's also posted on

commondreams.org. here's that link. http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0128-21.htm
:hi: :loveya: :hug: :pals: :woohoo: