[vollmond]

I don't like this. It could have the effect of turning the Senate into a rubber stamp for the executive branch. They need to force real fillibusters. Preferably just before votes on issues the Dems hold dear.

[CA Conservative]

I don't like this. It could have the effect of turning the Senate into a rubber stamp for the executive branch. They need to force real fillibusters. Preferably just before votes on issues the Dems hold dear.

How would it do that? If a majority of senators opposed a nominee, that nominee could still be voted down. All this would do is require that an up or down vote is held, and will not allow a minority to kill a nomination that had majority support.

It would also not eliminate the legislative filibuster, as noted in the article above.

[goldstategop]

It would NOT affect the filibuster rule on legislation. It just would not allow the Senate to hold up proceedings on executive nominations. If a majority of Senate wants to vote for a judge, they should be allowed to vote for him. The only downside is we won't be able to block a future Democratic President's federal judicial nominations but if we're entering a long era of conservative dominance by the time that happens the federal bench, including the U.S Supreme Court, will be solidly conservative. Its worth going for broke on this one.

[FreedomFlyer]

The rules of a prior Congress cannot constitutionally be used to prevent a MAJORITY of the current Congress from giving its consent to a nomination. The Constitution provides for Senate consent to nominations and a majority wants to give that consent, but is prevented from doing so by a resolution passed by a long-ago Congress in 1975. This all seems to violate the Constitution to me.

The current Congress has the right to consent if it wants to. No supermajority rule of a prior Congress can bind a majority of the current Congress.

So here is what should happen:

The Dems filibuster.
The Repubs raise a point of order.
The Parliamentarian is consulted and advises that the filibuster is legal.
The President of the Senate (Cheney) rejects the advice and rules that the filibuster is out of order.
The Dems appeal the ruling of the President of the Senate.
The Senate votes 51-49 to uphold the ruling of the President of the Senate.
The filibusters are over, just like would happen in the House in any event--no big loss.
The dems sue in court, but lose 7-0 in the US Supreme court because, no matter whether the Senate is right or wrong, it is the FINAL judge of its own rules.

Filibusters are ODIOUS, most often used for bad purposes, from trying to stop civil rights bills in the 1960s to preventing Breyer from joining the Court of Appeals (he is certainly competent to serve).

[justshutupandtakeit]

Filibusters are extra-constitutional and the lack of them would not mean the Senate would be a rubber stamp for the executive. It would only mean it had to do the job the constitution sets out for it "to advise and consent" not to obstruct and refuse to allow a vote. A majority would still be required. Since when is requiring a majority a rubber stamp?

[Patriotic Bostonian]

This fillibuster is unconstitutional!!!! You really have to read about what is really going on. This fillisbuster is the first of its kind.

[DED]

I agree with you - stop all the gamesmanship and let the Dems run their clever little trick 24/7.
But then, be prepared to spend money to get the message to the voters exactly what is going on. It shouldn't be hard to show how incredibly hypocritical the Democratic Senate is.
Run all the quotes from the Clinton administration where Leahy, Boxer, and the rest decry filibusters against judges under any circumstances.
Then present the way they said they were filibustering Estrada because he wouldn't answer (more than 125) questions, and when presented with the opportunity to ask more questions, declined to do so.
Hypocrisy has a new name - "Senate Democrats 2003"