Rule change? The issue here is not about a RULE CHANGE but on setting a precendent on the scope of a filibuster.
There is sufficient precedent for the process on how the majority of the Senate can define the scope of the rules of the US Senate. The question that will likely be raised for clarification will be to determine if the Filibuster rule should be meant to allow a delay indefinitely on whether or not the Senators can vote their "advice and consent" on a judicial nominee?
Personally I think there should be generous time limits set for all the "Advice and Consent" work of the US Senate to give the Senators and their staff enough time to evaluate each candidate and evaluate feedback from their constituents. For major appointments (such as Cabinet positions and Supreme Court nominations) I think there ought to be a 30 day limit in Committee and 60 day limit overall upon which the Filibuster delaying option is eliminated. In such cases I think that each Senator should be allotted sufficient floor speaking time (approx. 40-60 minutes) to weigh in on the nominees before a vote is taken. For mid-level appointments (such as underSecretaries and Appelate Court nominees and high ranking General/Flag officers) I think the delaying options could be doubled to 60 and 120 days. For low-level appointments like district judges and low ranking General Flag officers I think that 180-240 days could be appropriate.
Getting rid of the Filibuster altogether would be a horrible mistake. If a President ever makes a bad nomination then we're all going to need some time to get the message out and FREEP our Senators. Otherwise it'll be too easy for a President (especially if the Senate is controlled by the President's party) to make grave mistakes. Do we want a tyranny or a Republic? Please keep in mind that George W. Bush will not always be President and we could have a President/Senate that isn't well-liked by Freepers.
Yes I think ALL these judges should get to have an up/down vote. But I don't think any of them should get an up/down vote until either a supermajority agree to vote or there is sufficient time for nominee advice/consent review and Senators to publicly declare their views/advice on the floor and in the Congressional Record.
The partisanship games are getting very tiresome in Washington. It's obvious that Harry Reid and his caucus are focused on creating a super-constitutional power for themselves to allow a minority of Senators to dictate the terms on whom may be nominated and voted upon for Supreme Court vacancies. Why are they doing this? I think primarily because of Roe-v-Wade. I've never seen such a consistent and far-lasting focus on such a short-term issue. It's played heavily into everything they've done since Al Gore recanted his concession on Election Night in 2000. A big plank of the Florida 2000 chad-counting was the Roe-v-Wade concerns. Remember the Daschle efforts that succeeded to switch Jeffords? Remember how Toricelli got booted out? Remember the zeal/energy to get Mondale put in at the last moment to take Wellstone's place? Remember the unprecedented filibustering games of the 2003-2004 session? Remember the battle cries of the 2004 election? Remember the battle cries that are still continuing in some Democrat circles about Ohio? Some of them still think that the 2004 Election was stolen. It seems that winning is more important to them than the rule of law and the respect for our Constitution. If they really cared about the Constitution and also making sure that "advice and consent" means 3/5ths then they should've amended the Constitution. BTW I'd personally like to see such an amendment get ratified in the Constitution. But I can't see such an Amendment getting passed in Congress now because of all the political warfare going on between the major political parties on this issue. If the Republicans were to support such an Amendment they'd be wrongly labeled Hypocrites by the Democrats because they'll think it'll score them political points.
Yep. It's all about liberals wanting to keep their supposed 'right' to butcher their children.
What would you think of the following:
* First, the federal court of appeals and district court judges ought to notify the president of their intended retirement dates at least a year in advance whenever possible. Because the nomination and confirmation of a federal judge can be a lengthy process even under the best of circumstances, advance notice is necessary to prevent extended unnecessary judicial vacancies. This would build on existing Judicial Conference recommendations and would create a seamless process whereby a new federal judge is ready to take the bench at or near the time a sitting federal judge retires.
* Second, Presidents should submit a nomination to the Senate within 180 days of receiving notice of a federal court vacancy or intended retirement. This would help expedite the process by which home-State Senators, Representatives, bar leaders, and others provide their recommendations and evaluations of possible judicial candidates to the President, while leaving ample time for Presidents to vet and choose nominees of the highest quality.
* Third, the Senate Judiciary Committee commits to hold a hearing within 90 days of receiving a nomination. The Committee has engaged in too many delays of too many nominees for too many years. A strict deadline, which will apply no matter who is President and which party controls the Senate, would ensure that judicial nominees are promptly and fairly considered. Ninety days is more than enough time for the Committee to conduct any necessary research before holding a hearing.
* Fourth, the full Senate must hold an up-or-down floor vote within 180 days of receiving a judicial nomination. That is a generous period designed to give both the Committee and the full Senate ample time to evaluate nominees and answer any questions they may have. And all Senators will have an opportunity to have their voices heard and their votes counted.
Would you be satisfied with this. How would you change it?