Executive Appointments Quotes
President Andrew Johnson had been impeached by the House of Representatives and was being tried in by the Senate. A majority of the Senators voted for conviction but the vote was 1 short of the two-thirds that were needed. Johnson remained in office. These were two of the charges against Johnson. A Century later Presidents commonly did both of these. George W. Bush made reappointment of Senate rejected nominees into an art form but after the Johnson trial, these were never to be considered reasons for impeachment again.
Neither side wants an appointee who is strong enough to move against their ideology. So with each party having the Senate filibuster, since they cannot get a strong leader advocating for their ideology, they will settle for a professionally competent, weak leader in the middle of the road who not be able to overcome their power.
Most legislative bodies have rules about when and under what conditions a vote is taken. Amendments, procedures, committees all have procedures where votes may be taken that could defeat a nomination or a proposed law but if those defeats fail, there still is not necessarily a law passed or a nomination confirmed. That has to be a separate vote, often called an “up or down vote.” One parliamentary mechanism for opposing a bill or a nomination is to keep voting on amendments and procedures and never have an up or down vote. This is actually true with the vast majority of the laws proposed in both houses of the Congress. Most never do have an up or down vote. Why Gerhatdt and other ask should judicial nominations be different from any law, or any other presidential nomination? Also see {588517} for another factor.