[ez]

. And as for Republican tactics in the Senate, I hope that Bill Frist is simply looking for the right opportunity to spring the trap on the Democrats.

IMHO, the Republicans wish to keep the cloture rule on Judicial appointees in order to stop particularly odious leftist judges, and instead, will use political pressure on Senators who face reelection next year as their weapon of choice. If the Dems do not conceed, they will drag this out until next fall, where they will use it much like they used Max Cleland's anti-War stance against him.

[deport]

IMHO, the Republicans wish to keep the cloture rule on Judicial appointees in order to stop particularly odious leftist judges,

---

Could you name any that they have used this tactic on in the past other than Fortas to be Chief Justice?

[John Valentine]

IMHO, the Republicans wish to keep the cloture rule on Judicial appointees in order to stop particularly odious leftist judges, and instead, will use political pressure on Senators who face reelection next year as their weapon of choice.

This might be a viable theory if there were even the slightest evidence that Republicans actually wanted to do such a thing. Far from it, there is virtually no history of filibuster of judicial appointments by republicans.

As far as particularly odious leftist judges, how about Ruth Bader Ginsburg? She is about as odious and as leftist you can get and still not be a university professor, yet the Republicans did not filibuster her nomination. In fact most voted for her and her nomination passed overwhelmingly in spite of her odiousness.

Really, here is the issue: The Constitution provides for an up or down vote on judicial nomineees. If we place the filibuster breaking vote of 61 Senators in front of all judicial nomineees one party doesn't like, we have effectuated an amendment to the Constiution in a most unconstitutional manner. This is TRULY odious.