"By the time that republicnas would rue the day that they blocked filibustering judicial nominations, I submit that the filibuster would not be relevant because looking at the makeup of the courts as they will be slated, any judge appointed will be in no postion to undo what the prospective courts have already done."
Well, remember that we're now trying to undo what LIBERAL judges have done for the past 60 years. The pendulum may take a while to swing, but swing it may. Anyway, the argument for ending the filibuster of judges is not strategic, but principled. Every nominee should get an up-or-down vote. That's the constitutional part of the constitutional option.
Anyway, the argument for ending the filibuster of judges is not strategic, but principled. Every nominee should get an up-or-down vote. That's the constitutional part of the constitutional option.
Agreed. I was posting the opinion as a mater of strategy because is how many RINOS look at the issue. I was basically trying to show how silly retaining the filibuster is as a matter of long or short term strategy. btw, not only RINOS are looking at keeping the filibuster, but there are many conservatives like George Will who do not want to end this as a tool. Honestly, I don't know what planet Will is on if he thinks that if the senate changes hands, the donks will honor a repub filibuster. Pure poppycock. IMHO, the entire practice (filibustering ANY appointment, not just judicial) needs to be deep-sixed.