Nuclear Filibuster and the Constitution

Harry Reid is at it again. Not surprising, since Frist isn't playing nice either. Why can't the parties find reasonable people for their leadership?

"The Senate is not a rubber stamp for the executive branch," Reid said. "Rather, we're the one institution where the minority has a voice and the ability to check the power of the majority. Today, in the face of President Bush's power grab, that's more important than ever."
.
.
.
Reid says that the Constitution does not require that judicial nominees get confirmation votes, allowing the minority to block them. Bush and other Republicans who argue otherwise "rewrite the Constitution and reinvent reality," he said.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said he will call a vote next week on whether Republican senators are willing to let the minority Democrats continue to block the White House's judicial appointments through filibusters.

"The principle is that judicial nominees with support of a majority of United States senators deserve a fair up-or-down vote on the floor of the United States Senate," Frist said.

I'm going to guess that the original creators of the constitution didn't intend it either way. Though Reid is making things up with his statement on rewriting the constitution. More rubbish rhetoric. The constitution does say (where "he" referred to is the president):

Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

A bit vague but in reality just a simple statement. I don't see how else you can see this. Doesn't say anything about any committee, nor that the minority can block advice and consent. Nor does the constitution have anything in it about filibusters.

I think the senators that are working for the compromise have the right idea. It should be an honest discussion on procedure. It should be held in control by the moderates. The only part I'm a bit queasy with is this statement:

But more importantly, both sides would have to operate on "good faith" when it comes to future nominations. Republicans would be bound not to ban judicial filibusters only if Democrats forswear judicial filibusters on court nominees except for extraordinary situations, aides said.

Who is defining what is an extraordinary situation?

I really hope the compromise is accepted. Either side of this will end up with situations that are unreasonable in the end.