[3catsanadog]

I've been wondering alot lately about this need for 60 votes in the Senate to pass something. Or is it 60 votes needed to confirm a judicial nominee?

I seem to recall that this magical number of 60 was put into place recently.

Does anyone know more about this? My gut says that something is wrong with this.

Thanks in advance for any knowledge Freepers may have to share with me.

Re Estrada - not a day passes anymore when I hope and pray that in 2004 the Republicans have a solid majority in the House and Senate and that Dubya is re-elected. What the Demoncrats did to this man is dispicable.

[steveegg]

I've been wondering alot lately about this need for 60 votes in the Senate to pass something. Or is it 60 votes needed to confirm a judicial nominee?

This particular rant-fest is about the latter (an extension of the filibuster to judicial nominees). The 'RATS refuse to allow certain nominees (any conservative) to come up for a vote, and the RINOs (sorry, there just isn't any other kind of Pubbie in the Senate) go along with a relaxed version of the fillibuster in a failed attempt to "get along".