[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.

[ez]

Well, I still think the plan is to use this Democrat obstructionism as a campaign bludgeon, but I agree with you that all nominees should receive a straight up or down vote, and no vote in committee. Otherwise, you are changing the Constitution as described in the Federalist papers which says that the executive should have the larger share of the power, by giving a Senate minority a veto over his choices. And the rule allowing a single home state Senator to quash a Presidential selection is particularly unConstitutional.

IOW, a nominee should be so undesirable that over half the Senators agree he should be rejected.

FReegards...