Roberts or no Roberts those can be filibustered and blocked. The question is if McConnell and McCain and Graham and the rest will do it.
No one's going to do it if the Pubbies don't have a majority in the Senate. That's my point.
The weak-kneeed elitists won't feel comfortable enough to impose filibusters if they don't have a majority. Look what happened with Cruz and his efforts to block funding of Obamacare for proof of that.
They won't feel comfortable and they will point to their minority status as an excuse to not act. They will probably go so far as to cite Ried's nuclear option this past year, using that as an excuse also (even though that rule change doesn't prohibit filibusters for court nominations.)
These are weak-kneeed, cowardly traitorous people we are talking about here who will use any convenient sounding excuse to shirk their Constitutional duty, all in the name of political correctness. We can't give them any more excuses than they can already manufacture. With a majority in the Senate their cowardice will be on full display should they try to avoid filibustering SC nominees. Even Joe Uninformed voter will get that.
I just realized I misspoke in my last post. I’m too used to the R’s being in the minority.
If the R’s control the Senate then they control the Judiciary committee. So Obozo’s nominees will never make it out of committee to even be fillibistered. Much less voted on.
That is, if the traitorous cowards do their job. But of course that’s a lot harder to shirk if they have a majority for the reason I explained before (such cowardice will be on full display even to the low information voter)
I thought judicial nominees now need only a straight majority, so it’s assumed if the Ds were to maintain control of the Senate, Obama’s nominees would pass right through. If the R’s take over control, that’s far less a sure thing, tho R’s tend to vote less in lockstep than do the Ds.