Replies

I still don't understand exactly how Democrats can filibuster judicial nominees, period.

It has been a two hundred year precedent in the Senate that judicial nominees were not to be filabustered.

Hillary and Schumer threw that out the window.

And some armchair geniuses on FR blame the GOP for Hillary and Schumer's actions.

To be sure, the root cause of this is Schumer, Kennedy and Hillary (not to mention Norman Lear at PFAW). However, blame should and must be placed at the feet of Hatch, Frist, and yes, even Bush. I concur that the 24/7 line holds no water. However, Bush could easily have seated his ENTIRE SLATE of nominees last week through recess appointments--and still can come Thanksgiving or Christmas this year. Bill Clinton did it numerous times. Also, the spineless Pub senators could easily have made a parliamentary ruling from the chair that the 60-vote senate cloture rule does not apply to judicial nominees, thus forcing the up or down floor vote --Byrd did then same thing when he was maj. leader, although on a different matter, not judges. So in essence, and yet again, the Senate Republicans absolutely and positively did bend over and let Kennedy/Schumer/Clinton stick it in and break it off over Estrada, who can hardly be blamed for withdrawing. Clearly, they value their own careers far more than the Constitution, or even plain old principles. These gutless prostitutes deserve to be ousted, but as previously mentioned, in the two party system, they're the only game in town for conservatives.

It has been a two hundred year precedent in the Senate that judicial nominees were not to be filabustered. Hillary and Schumer threw that out the window.

Hence my question, why can't, since Republicans are the majority, just do an up or down vote regardless of what the Democrats think they're doing. If they have the vote, the judge should be seated, correct?