[cogitator]

So maybe I shouldn't be stating this in public, because it's too good an idea?

[clee1]

Bad idea.

There shoud be NO recognition of an ultra-constitutional parlimentary "trick" to halt judicial nominations.

The Constitution provides for a simple majority, 51 votes, to confirm a justice. THAT should be what is adhered to.

[Paleo Conservative]

My guess is that if these nominees acutally come up for a vote on the senate floor quite a few DemocRATS will vote to confirm. That's why they want to maintain a 60 vote cloture rule. It keeps DemocRATS from marginal seats from having to explicitly go on record against conservative nominees or alienating activists and donors by voting for Republican nominees. I really think there should be a constitutional amendment that would put a time limit on the Senate to act on judicial nominations. If after one year or so, the Senate has not voted on the nomination, the nominee would take the position permanently.

[acelatek]

Brilliantly Political Move - Democrats deception at its best

Abhorrent constitutionally - This is an advise and consent matter, all you need is 51 votes for confirmation

[American Quilter]

>>And it still preserves the minority's "right" to filibuster.<<

Unless I have completely misunderstood this issue, no one is threatening to end the right to filibuster. What the Republicans are attempting to end is the 40-year-old "Gentlemen's filibuster", in which you don't actually have to PERFORM the filibuster (thereby avoiding any negative consquences of so doing), but can simply DECLARE that you're filibustering and thereby prevent any bill or nominee from getting out of committee and to the Senate floor. All other business proceeds as usual. This enables the Democrat minority to obstruct the President without having to come out into the open with a real filibuster.

[KC_for_Freedom]

I use this type of arguement to question where the number 60 came from. (I know, senators made a rule one day, when they decided that 67 was too high a barrier.) But now you propose 55, (or the number of the majority party.) But when the majority increases to 56 and you have a rule based on 55 are you then going to increase the number?

If the number is changed in every session then the number is certainly spurrious and points to the need by stalwart party members to "turn" one member of the opposite party. This is what has been done to the "RINOs" in the congress today. They run on a set of principles and then vote the other way.

The real number of votes needed to force a vote should be 51, as it certainly will be one day if this obstruction continues.

[CyberAnt]

WHAT IS IT ABOUT UN-CONSTITUTIONAL AND ILLEGAL THAT PEOPLE DON'T SEEM TO UNDERSTAND ANYMORE.

REQUIRING MORE THAN 51 VOTES FOR A "JUDICIAL NOMINEE" IS "UN-CONSTITUTIONAL" - PERIOD!

IS ANYBODY GETTING IT YET ..?????????

[gobucks]

too good?

Here's the bottom line: filibustering judges is a great way to get the laws you illegally got on the books, via judges, to stay on the books, via judges.

If you go down this road, and a single rino does indeed vote w/ the democrats as you know they will, then the democrats win, b/c we will be getting USSC nominees this year.

So. bottom line, why would frist want to enshrine illegal precedent? Just to flush out rinos? that would make frist a rino...

All that doesn't even address the constitutional issues.

But the worst reason is this: such a move would utter FANTASTICALLY EMBOLDEN democrats...; why on earth would we want to give them any hope whatsoever. Such a move would be proof, to them, that they are morally in the right ...


too good ....? For democrats, it indeed is...

[whereasandsoforth]

Sorry Tator, it won't fly in my world. Requiring 52 votes to confirm is one too many. But you might mention this to the final arbitrators on "American Idol" so they can get around all their voting problems.