[Congressman Billybob]

Up until the Schumer hijacking of the Constitution, all confirmations of judicial appointments were conducted by majority vote. The one exception was the mini-filbuster against Abe Fortas for the Supreme Court, and the Administration immediately dropped that ethically defective nomination, rather than fight it out.

So, getting rid of the filibuster on judicial nominations ONLY both obeys the Constitution (where Advise and Consent requires only a majority) and preserves Senate traditions, going back two centuries. Four months ago I laid this whole porcess out in writing on FreeRepublic.

The only reason it has not been done is that Bill Frist doesn't want to upset the Democrats too much. Does that remind you of anyone? Trent (Vacant) Lott, perhaps?

John / Billybob

[jrushing]

The only reason it has not been done is that Bill Frist doesn't want to upset the Democrats too much. Does that remind you of anyone? Trent (Vacant) Lott, perhaps?

Yes, it reminds me & concerns me that the Constitution will not be upheld by those who have sworn to uphold it.
Thank you C.Billybob for fighting to uphold our Constitution. We need more like you to fight for us in Washington!
It is very confusing to me that we have the Majority but cannot seem to use it.

[pogo101]

You're right about Fortas, but (as I know YOU know) it's worth mentioning, as further means of setting that instance apart from the current abomination, that:

1. THAT filibuster was BIPARTISAN.
2. It was based on ethics (wasn't it? not sure).
3. Fortas was already on SCOTUS as an Associate Justice. The filibuster merely blocked him from becoming Chief Justice.