[AFPhys]

I am increasingly confident the GOP is going to do a great service to the US by getting a handle on this problem.

[thepitts]

Yea, Now the republicans are interested in the constitution.

[Raymond Hendrix]

This is a great idea but it will come back to haunt when the Democrats have the majority. Nevertheless I agree that the constitution should be observed regardless. Of course, it is so much toilet-paper now anyway because people cannot read plain english.

[Robert_Paulson2]

Changing the rules sounds so simple....

The writer neglects to say that the "rules" probably require a super majority... and that sever "republican" ahem... senators will defect because they too, support a woman's right to choose.

It would be cool if the pubbies rammed this through.

They don't have the stomach for it... do they?

[talleyman]

GOP backbone in the Senate would be a refreshing change. However, I've seen too much "roll over & play dead" to get excited at the prospect.

[ZGuy]

When SCOTUS ruled on the constitutionality of the Florida recount and ruled in favor of the constitution (and against Gore) the democrats began their mantra of "selected, not elected."

In this case, if the blockage of nominees is ended because their fillibuster is found to be unconstitutional we can definitely expect them to spin it to rally the uninformed and make the republicans look evil. I'm sure the new battle cry is already ready to go.

[freeeee]

The GOP, through its repeated and egregious Constitutional violations both historic and especially recent, has lost any claim for concern about the Constitution being violated.

They are now exactly in the same league as Democrats: They'll act rightous about the Constitution when and only when it furthers their interests.

The Constitution to the GOP is now nothing but a tool to be used at politically opportune moments, such as the one the article mentions. One would need the attention span of a house fly to think otherwise.

[jackbill]

While Swanson makes a very good case for the fact that a super-majority requirement for judicial nominations is unconstitutional, his "solution" is weak.

If the DemocRATs will filibuster a judicial nomination, won't they filibuster a change in the Senate rules?

I prefer Jim Talent's solution.

[firewalk]

bttt

[Stay the course]

[Senate rules] are merely internal procedures, and under any proper understanding of the history and theory of legislative bodies, no prior Senate can exercise perpetual, dead-hand control over the present one.

Senate Rule V: "The rules of the Senate shall continue from one Congress to the next Congress unless they are changed as provided in these rules."

He's arguing that the Senate can ignore their rules whenever they choose, if they assume that a prior Senate has no authority over the present one. But that assumption requires them to ignore Rule V (properly a "metarule", since it governs how rules are made), which gives them precisely that authority. Therefore, his argument is circular.

[truthserum]

I signed on Free Republic this afternoon to post a link to our white paper on filibusters of judicial nominees. What a pleasant surprise to see a similar idea from a separate source. Our Executive Summary and the complete paper is available at http://www.aclj.org/resources/judconf/Filibusters.pdf, and a press release summarizing those documents is found at http://www.aclj.org/news/pressreleases/030506_filibusters.asp.

We take the matter just a bit further in development than does Mr. Swanson from Cato. Specifically, we call for a vote by a simple majority of the United States Senate to affirm the proposition that the Senate has the right under the Constitution to make its own rules (free from judicial interference), and that a simple majority has authority to exercise that power. Then, we call for vote to amend Rule XXII (the Cloture Rule) to eliminate the supermajority requirements. Finally, we call for the judicial nominations that have been subjected to filibuster to be brought forward for a vote on whether they should be consented to.

[pabianice]

Blah, blah, blah. And after the lecture, the Repubs will return to being the gutless cowards they are, too afraid to make the Dems hold a real fillibuster. So the Dems win.