[neverdem]

When do they think a majority not been enough for a judicial confirmation?

I hate to confirm what the Times alluded to, but the pubbies denied up or down votes to Paez for four years and Berzon for two years until Trent Lott relented on Mar 9, 2000 with those Clinton nominees. They are hoisting us on our own petard, although some were quoted at the time saying that they would never do what they are doing now, by refusing to vote for cloture.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r106:FLD001:S51345

Go down the page until you see a linked "Page: S1340"

Page: S1340
Judge Deserves Rousing Approval
Infamous Anniversary for Courts
The Paez and Berzon Votes
Senate GOP Drags Feet on Justices
Ending a Judicial Blockade

[Congressman Billybob]

A "blockade," not bringing the nomination up for a vote, is not the same as a filibuster, which is preventing a vote. As long as there is a committee structure in the Senate there will be occasional delays there, and later delays before a floor vote.

None of that contradicts the point that it takes a simple majority of Senate, now 51 votes, to confirm a judicial appointment.

John / Billybob

[Lancey Howard]

At that time (Paez and Berzon) did the New York Times berate the Democrats for puuting forward left-wing extremists?