Senators need confirmation by the Senate to be seated????

[paineinthearse]

From today's pResidential news conference. The WH transcript editors caught this "sic", I take no credit.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/05/20050531.html

Yes, John.

Q Thank you, sir. Can you talk a little bit about the process you're using to pick your next Supreme Court justice? And is that going to be affected at all by the agreement that was reached between the 14 Republicans and Democrats on judicial nominations?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, that depends on whether or not the Senate will give my person an up or down vote. Here's my process. One, I'm obviously going to spend a lot of time reviewing the records of a variety of people and looking at their opinions and their character, and will consult with members of the United States Senate at the appropriate time.

I know there's been a lot of talk about consultation between the White House and the Senate, and we do consult -- obviously, we consult on district judges -- and that we listen to their opinions on appellate judges -- "their" opinions being the opinions from the home state senators, as well as others.

I look forward to talking to members of the Senate about the Supreme Court process to get their opinions, as well, and will do so -- and will do so. But, obviously, it's -- I told the American people I would find people of a certain temperament that would serve on the bench, and I intend to do that, but we will consult with the Senate.

Now, in terms of whether that agreement means that a senator is going to get an up or down vote, I guess it was vague enough for people to interpret the agreement the way they want to interpret it. I'll put a best face on it, and that is that since they're moving forward with Judge Owen, for example, and others, that "extraordinary circumstances" means just that -- really extraordinary. I don't know what that means. (Laughter.) I guess we're about to find out when it comes to other appellate judges. (Laughter.)

Unless * meant that that is a future Constitutional reform?

[mcscajun]

1. Total slip of the tongue.

New Senators present their credentials, but they're not subject to "up or down votes".

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/common/briefing/Standing_Rules_Senate.htm#2

[acmejack]

3. Changing the rules worked for his buddy

pootie-poot. I wouldn't put it past him, he would like to advise and consent on the seating of Senators, I'm sure. He just keeps proving himself a bigger idiot than I thought, no mean feat.

[Mass]

2. another Bushism to add to the list

after disassemble for dissemble.

My TV was on, so I listened to him a little bit. He really had trouble saying what he meant, so we should not be surprised that he mispoke a couple times.

[alfredo]

4. Our state senate has the right to refuse to seat anyone

last year a Democrat was awarded a senate seat after her opponent was found not to be a state resident. David Williams refused to allow her to take her seat.

It might be a good idea to review senate rules to see if Frist can refuse to seat Dems if it appears that he could lose the majority.

I found the standing rules of the Senate

http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/menu.htm