Say it with me now, "The Constitution does not require a 60 vote super majority to confirm Judges." The fillibuster is not provided for in the Constitution, yet it is being used to, de facto, amend the Constitution. Amending the Constition requires the use of the democratic process, i.e. drafting an amendment that must pass the House and Senate by a 2/3 vote and then be ratified by the states. Allowing the fillibuster to usurp the democratic process is where we are truly robbed of liberty, not when a majority or minority acts to restore a Constitution process upon which our democracy is based.
Did ya get that. P.S. Say this along with me, the Judiciary is a co-equal branch of the government. It does not sit ABOVE the Legislative and Executive branch. It sits with them. When it, once again de facto, sits above the other two branches, the judiciary is free to act as a dictator would. Espousing laws that never met legislative muster, rejecting laws that did. This is a violation of our liberty. Government without representation. . .I believe somewhere in history a revolution was fought over something like that, hmmmm, where was that?
Well stated.
Why isn't 'tahiti' saying anything in reply to responses to his/her vanity post, let alone repeating wisdom along with you?