Will the Democrats fillibuster pro-life Supreme Court appointments?

[Sulfur]

People who would overturn Roe v. Wade?

[Lunar]

I support overturning Roe v. Wade (leave it to the states), but it all really depends.  If the judge is far-right, then yes, yes.  If the judge is a moderate, then no, yes.

[Kodratos]

no, yes.

It's wrong to filibuster a judge because he might have differant opinions from those of the Democratic party. If he was radically out of the mainstream then that is another matter entirely.

Post number 666!

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

If he was radically out of the mainstream then that is another matter entirely.

Post number 666!

that's all they filibustered so far, with the possible exception of Estrada, but the problem with him was that he answered very few of the questions he was asked by the committee.

[KEmperor]

They certainly will, I don't know if they should.  I am strongly pro-choice, but I would be willing to leave it to the states to decide.

[Sulfur]

New Senate Minority Leader is pro-life.

[elcorazon]

They should filibuster anyone they feel is out of the mainstream and/or is unqualified for the position.  I personally doubt they've got the balls to do it, unless it's truly an extreme choice.

Nevertheless, I voted yes, yes.  I don't think it should be all about abortion however.  One must look at a bigger picture than that.

[??????????]

The Republicans will challenge the constitutionality of the "super majority" if they fillibuster. They are hoping to get it to where you only need a simple majority, 51 votes. It is likely to happen.

[ATFFL]

The Republicans will challenge the constitutionality of the "super majority" if they fillibuster. They are hoping to get it to where you only need a simple majority, 51 votes. It is likely to happen.

Nah, they are more likely to use the "Nuclear option" than change the filibuster rule. 

They will raise a challenge that the filibuster is out of order.  All it takes to support that is a straight up or down vote.  It also leads to no permanent change.

Only down side is once the dems regain power they will likely make use of it too.  Sort of a MAD for Senators.

[A18]

Question. Has the fillibuster ever been used to block anything that way ACTUALLY BAD?

[Bogart]

Should they--yes.  Will they--probably. In its role of advise and consent, the Senate has a perfect right and obligation to challenge Bush's Court nominees. In fact, I'm counting on them to. As a moderate, I felt more comfortable voting for Bush knowing that he would have a foil in the Democratic minority in the Senate. One could easily turn the argument around and ask, "Knowing that nearly half the country voted for someone other than the President, should he appoint judges that are pro-life when most of the country is not?"

[zachman]

From a strategic standpoint no. I'd like to see the Democrats give the Republicans this, because the Republicans will lose a lot of their support from Catholics and religous conservatives. The Republicans will soon be faced with a crisis: should they let Roe v. Wade be overturned, or fail to follow through on their pro-life stance. Neither option is as good as the abortion issue has been for the Republicans in the last two elections.

I think Democrats will give a short fillibuster.

[opebo]

The Republicans will challenge the constitutionality of the "super majority" if they fillibuster. They are hoping to get it to where you only need a simple majority, 51 votes. It is likely to happen.

Nah, they are more likely to use the "Nuclear option" than change the filibuster rule. 

They will raise a challenge that the filibuster is out of order.  All it takes to support that is a straight up or down vote.  It also leads to no permanent change.

Only down side is once the dems regain power they will likely make use of it too.  Sort of a MAD for Senators.

Well, I would hope that Chaffee, Specter, Snowe, Collins, and possibly McCain would vote against this sort of nonsense.  Any others?  By my count that's 50/50 so I guess Cheney could break the tie and ruin the Senate.

[??????????]

The Republicans will challenge the constitutionality of the "super majority" if they fillibuster. They are hoping to get it to where you only need a simple majority, 51 votes. It is likely to happen.

Nah, they are more likely to use the "Nuclear option" than change the filibuster rule. 

They will raise a challenge that the filibuster is out of order.  All it takes to support that is a straight up or down vote.  It also leads to no permanent change.

Only down side is once the dems regain power they will likely make use of it too.  Sort of a MAD for Senators.

Well, I would hope that Chaffee, Specter, Snowe, Collins, and possibly McCain would vote against this sort of nonsense.  Any others?  By my count that's 50/50 so I guess Cheney could break the tie and ruin the Senate.

The senate was ruined when Senators became directly elected.

[cwelsch]

No they shouldn't but yes they will.  The Democrats are the party of abortion, and they have millions of dollars hinging on the support of the various pro-choice PACs.

[NHPolitico]

None of the appointments will go on record saying they'll overturn it and they'll say that it is settled law.  Bush can get Pryor and Lincoln and Nelson (NE) and maybe Nelson (FL) for starters, I bet, to keep the filibuster threat from Schumer, etc. hollow.  I'd also probably add Salazar, too.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Avoid making this an issue for 2006. Take out the whackos though.