A Filibuster is the term used for an extended debate in the Senate which has the effect of preventing a vote. Senate rules contain no motion to force a vote. A vote occurs only once debate ends.
Therefore I conclude that the D's will attempt to continue debate on judicial nominees, ad infinitum, unless the R's can garner 60 supporting members to vote for an end to the debate? However, as the definition above says, "Senate rules contain no motion to force a vote." So I guess I am still a bit confused. Can 60 votes end debate and force a vote on a judicial nominee, or can the debate continue until doomsday?
In my most recent hard-copy issue of Human Events, in the Capital Briefs section, I read that "Hatch announced last week that he would drop the requirement that both senators from a given state submit positive reviews - or 'blue slips' - for a nominee to receive committee consideration.....if committee Republicans go along with Hatch, Democrats will have only the filibuster as a recourse against conservative judges."
The first part of this info is easy to understand - that denying 'blue slips' to nominees is a form of filibuster (obstructionism). The short quip does not, however, go into detail about the one final filibuster left to the D's. Is it prolonged debate without a vote?
PhiKapMom, I would guess that a thread devoted exclusively to getting out the word about a Democrat filibuster of judicial nominees in the Senate, complete with definitions!, would be useful. What do you think? Maybe you have already done that, and I just missed the thread. President Bush's judicial nominations are the most important function of his career in the White House. I believe America's future hangs in the balance on these nominees alone. I wish it were not so, but who can deny it after witnessing so much judicial activism?