[Archon of the East]

"....preserving our system of checks and balances are at the heart of the Senate rules debate.

Just who the hell is checking the Judiciary anyway?

[b4its2late]

George Mitchell - gag me.

[Numbers Guy]

It's very interesting, if the nuclear option is not invoked, what do Mitchell and his Dem pals think is going to happen the next time there's a Democratic President? Now that the Dems have upped the ante does he think that the Republicans will turn the other cheek and choose not to filibuster Democratic judicial nominees?

[Cowboy Bob]

If Senate rules allow for a "Nuclear Option," then how is wrong when the Senate exercises this rule?

[Starve The Beast]

Between 1968 and 2001, both parties used filibusters to oppose judicial nominees.

A lot of this guy's logic comes from this statement, which is seriously misleading. The fact is that it's the Dems who have already dropped the 'Nuclear Option', insisting on a super-majority for judicial confirmation. The Repubs are just reacting, no matter how it sounds in the MSM echo chamber.

[willgolfforfood]

I keep seeing this crap in this argument about "preserving the checks and balances". The checks and balances in our system prevent the different BRANCHES of government (Congress, the Courts, and the Executive) from each gaining too much power at the expense of any other branch. I know it seems to be failing somewhat of late with the Courts getting a little too powerful, but Congress can reverse this trend, if they have the will, and a president trying to appoint strict constructionists can also have an impact.

Checks and balances ARE NOT something the Constitution is set up to guard BETWEEN POLITICAL PARTIES. The parties we have had for the last 100 years didn't even exist, and essentially weren't even envisioned by the Founders who wrote the Constitution.

So all this talk about Democrats needing to provide checks and balances to the power of the Republicans (or vice versa over the past 60 years) are really just a lame smokescreen to the real issue being contested and debated.

[Numbers Guy]

Let's accept Mitchell's claims at face value: he claims that three Democratic nominees in 33 years were filibustered.

Now that the Dems have filibustered 7 in 2 years, it would seem that revenge has been achieved. Or do the Dems have to filibuster 33 nominees in 3 years to make up for 3 alleged filibusters in 33 years?

[JoeGar]

Why all of the talk about filibusters? Nobody filibusters anymore.

[WoodstockCat]

Mitchell is the inventor of the smile and stilleto to the liver.

[Archon of the East]

Since 1789, the Senate has rejected nearly 20 percent of all nominees to the Supreme Court, many without an up-or-down vote.

I don't believe but a couple of these were actually obstructed?

Between 1968 and 2001, both parties used filibusters to oppose judicial nominees. In 2000, the last year of Bill Clinton's presidency, Republican senators filibustered two of his nominees to be circuit judges. They also prevented Senate votes on more than 60 of Mr. Clinton's judicial nominees by other means.

Ok so he mentioned the one in 1968 and implies that it means regular occurrence and as for the Clinton nominees weren't they eventually confirmed?

They also prevented Senate votes on more than 60 of Mr. Clinton's judicial nominees by other means.

Maybe I have my facts wrong but weren't the other means by Vote?

[crz]

The dems are doing this because they are/were close to gaining complete control over the government through activist judges. They continue to howl about it and see the chance of someday they might have the chance of doing just that.

[harpo11]

Well, we wouldn't be having this tax payer funded U. S. Senate's worthless time wasting discussion if it weren't for the fact that the democrat senators changed the rule ifor voting judicial nominees in the first place because they still ignore the simple fact, they lost, and the republicans won, however, the victorious republicans instead act like the defeated.

Where are the victory celebrations? Where are the President's Judicial Nominees?

Isn't it time for the Republican Party to stop playing the downtrodden and start leading as the victor? And, may I request that the mavericks, the lone rangers, and of course our Northeastern Moderate Wing of Whatever the Wind Blows in the republican party for once just ride solidly with our CIC?

[Treader]

Benherszen, you don't post often, so I would like to hear your point of view. Thanks

[Chode]

if the RATS want to "Filibuster" then let their RATTY ass get up there a FILLIBUSTER! none of this just saying "We're Filibustering" crap get up there and DO IT!!!

[AFPhys]

.