Even Frist can take both sides of it.
And DiFi has taken both sides of it.
Hmmmm... Strange how so many now are certain that it is violative of the Constitution.
Thank you for your remarks. This is the bottom line that eliminates any "solid argument" for a supermajority:
The 1987 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION specifically debated this. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1404953/posts
>>> On June 13, 1787, it was originally proposed that judges be appointed by the national Legislature, and that was rejected; Madison objected and made the alternative motion that appointments be made by the Senate, and that was at first approved. Madison specifically proposed that a supermajority be required for judicial appointments but this was rejected.
The CONSTITUTION AS RATIFIED has ONLY majority requirement for judicial appointments.
Thanks for the respectful debate. I have to run now.