Replies

The rules are agreed to when the senate forms for each session. Its not unconstitutional for the senate to set its own rules. Get over it, the GOP doesn't have enough votes unless it wants to dislodge a decades old agreement on how to handle filibusters.

Only those living in fantasy land cannot see that such an action cuts both ways and has a political cost for which one could win the immediate battle and lose the war.

For the present, the math is simple. 60 is greater than 40.

Have you ever read the constitution?

Can you show me where it states that a SUPER MAJORITY (60 votes) is required for a judicial nomination? I can point to you where 4 instances of a super majority is mentioned and none of which apply to judicial nominations.

The constitution is simple it states that a MAJORITY VOTE (51 votes) is required to allow a judicial nominee to be appointed. It also states in the constitution that Judicial nominees are to be VOTED ON by the SENATE. Key word here is VOTES on the floor once the president has nominated said judge. So please enlighten me as to where in the constitution a SUPER MAJORITY is required for judicial nominations? Don't you think if the founders wanted that they would have listed it as they carefully did with the 4 other instances in which a super majority is required?

The wording is simple
Super majority = 60 votes
Majority = 51 votes.
It is that simple
Read up on your constitution and get back to me.

Except the Senate isn't setting it's own rules, it's being governed by the rules of previous Senates which has long been considered by the courts to be unconstitutional. Each Senate is entitled to make it's own rules.

Now, if Frist can't muster the RINO's to vote for a change, then we are stuck with things as they are, but constituionally they can with 50 votes + Cheny - change the fillibuster rule.