[Fishrrman]

In the Senate, the Democrats have succeeded in changing the rules of the game. But to make matters worse, they were aided and abetted in doing so by -- hold onto your hats -- the REPUBLICANS.

The rules used to be: a majority vote confirms a judicial appointment. 51 votes out of 100.

The "majority vote" rule is no more. Without appropriate counter-action, it is dead and buried forever.

The _new_ rule is: in the Senate, 67 votes are necessary to confirm a judicial appointment.

Any, and EVERY, nomination perceived as too "ideological" by the Democrats is going to be fillibustered. I would predict that -- for the remainder of the Bush presidency (whether it lasts a single term or two terms, clearly uncertain as of this time) -- 75% of the Bush administrations judicial picks are "rejected by fillibuster". You read this number here first.

This _might have_ been nipped in the bud by the Republican Senate majority, or the White House, but neither were willing to take the necessary steps to counter the outrageous tactics of the Rats. This is serious business, folks, hardball of the hardest nature. The extreme actions of the Democrats - using the concept of a fillibuster to kill judicial nominations, and thus preventing a "floor vote" - amounts to nothing less than an attack on the Constitution (using Senate rules as a weapon). It must be met head-on with appropriately sweeping counter-force.

It has not. At this point, the Rats have won. Can it be stated more plainly?

I predict there can be only two possible ways for the Republicans to successfully re-establish the traditional 51-vote majority rule. One or both of these attempts MUST be used. Failure to do so will concede defeat to the Rat side.

These tactics are:
1. Recess appointment of federal judges (uncharted territory, but we MUST try this and "hang with it" wherever it takes us - NOT to try is to lose)
2. The "nuclear option" to destroy the fillibuster insofar as judicial confirmations are concerned (or, better yet, nuke the "fillibuster" altogether in the Senate - from now on, majority vote or nuthin')
Don't want to try them? Fine. Have it your way.

But better get used to the _end_ of "conservative judges" so long as there are 34 Rats in the Senate!

Cheers!
- John

[AMNZ]

Excellent analysis and remedies. I think it stems primarily from Pubbie leaderships fear of messing up their hair in a fight for what is right. Rats don't care they want what they want no matter what it costs us.

We FreeRepublicans need to develop strategies and tactics, as you have begun, to 1. replace RINO's with a little guts, 2. get the President's appointments voted on and confirmed, and 3. kill the over taxing and over spending.

There are a lot of great Freepers out there which I believe from their writings can and should be working to make FreeRepublic a powerful influence in reclaiming control of our government.

P.S. I think I heard today that they, the legislative arm, have voted themselves a 5% increase.

[steveegg]

Considering that the requirement to end a filibuster is only 60 votes, where did you come up with the 67 number? Other than that glaring mistake, 'tis a great post.

[Zack Nguyen]

The _new_ rule is: in the Senate, 67 votes are necessary to confirm a judicial appointment.

Actually I think it is 60. But the gist of your post is correct. In my opinion, the filibuster must be removed for judicial advise and consent. It solves the problem permanently.

I have grown so weary of Washington Republicans and their talent for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.