Replies

As I noted above, either the (cloture) rule is broken, or using it is fair play. If one considers that using the cloture rule in a judical appointment context is within the rules, one shouldn't complain just because this is (supposedly) the first time the rule was used this way. BTW, I think the GOP used cloture vs. Abe Fortas

A well reasoned response, which deserves an answer. I beleive that Abe Fortas's nomination actually came up for a vote in the Senate, something the demos denied to Miguel Estrada.

Huh, according to the below linked website, Abe Fortas actually was seated on the Supreme Court(i.e confirmed by the Senate) and resigned.

oyez.org

Hmm seems that you were wrong about your Fortas/Estrada comparison. Fortas got his vote on the Senate floor.

But what the hey when democrats are in trouble, they have no trouble in rewriting history.

Thanks for closing the loop on that. The GOP used filibuster vs. Fortas to delay a vote (for what, days? weeks?), but eventually broke ranks and permitted an up or down vote.

That would make the present situation un-precedented, where a political party that comprises a minority in the Senate uses the filibuster (doesn't break ranks) to prevent an up or down vote.

But, PKM argues that the rule permitting this should not be changed. If it's a good rule, then one shouldn't complain because the "other side" used it.

I'm not sure what your position is with resepct to "the cloture rule" (or "the rule to break the requirement for unanimous consent to have an up-or-down vote"), but you seem to say that this unprecedented move by the DEM party should not be permitted to stand. The solution you propose is to install a GOP supermajority. I'd like to see a conservative supermajority in the Senate too. But I hope that is not the only solution. That is, I'd like to see the rule changed -- or at least discussed further. Maybe Estrada bowing out is the spark that will ignite a serious discussion for rule change.