Bush, judicial nominations, Democrats, filibusters, and the nuclear option

[Richard]

Bush is preparing to renominate all the judges that Democrats didn't want to vote on.  About 20 of them.

Now in the 1970s, Democrats changed the filibuster rule from 66 to 60.  Now Republicans are thinking of changing that to something lower, possibly 55 or so.

Would you support this course of action to force a vote in Senate?  I mean, it isn't a difficult concept.  President nominates judges, Senate VOTES on them, not TALK endlessly for years at a time.

[7,052,770]

well if they do, we'll use it back on them one day.

[A18]

Fillibustering in general is illegal, and directly undermines the Constitution. Don't make it 55, make it a majority.

[Lunar]

I support fillibustering.  I'd like it to be back up to 66.

Nothing says "minority rights" like reading the telephone book!

[opebo]

I support fillibustering.  I'd like it to be back up to 66.

Nothing says "minority rights" like reading the telephone book!

I couldn't agree more!  The filibuster is a wonderful balance to the horrors of democracy.

However the religious that control the GOP are power-mad, and view the other side as actually 'evil', therefore I think they will do whatever they can to push through their theocratic agenda - including doing away with the wonderful filibuster.

[A18]

If you want to change the requirement from over 1/2 to 33/50, pass an amendment.

Why not require every Senator while you're at it?

[Lunar]

All politicians are power-mad.  That's why the fillibuster is good - it plays them against one another and acts as a check on the government.

You want to know why Bush wasn't able to control spending?  Because there wasn't an opposition party that could veto pet projects and pork.

If you want to change the requirement from over 1/2 to 33/50, pass an amendment.

Why not require every Senator while you're at it?

Logically it doesn't make sense for it to be 51%.  The 49% deserves the time to attempt to persuade the majority over to their side.

Logically it also doesn't make sense for it to be 100%.

Things don't have to be in absolutes.  66% is a good number to act as a check for the determined.

[A18]

The Democrats had 48 seats in Congress. With a 60 vote requirement, they still didn't stop mad spending.

I think requiring 60 votes for any tax increase or item of federal spending would be reasonable.

Look, I'm not saying the Dems should vote to confirm these judges, but not allowing a vote on them is blatantly unconstitutional.

[Lunar]

The Democrats had 48 seats in Congress. With a 60 vote requirement, they still didn't stop mad spending.

Obviously.  However, the fillibuster helped to keep the GOP in line at least a little bit.  The threat of the fillibuster probably controlled many things behind the scenes as well.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If the GOP wants to vote on them, all they have to do is beat the fillibuster.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Early in the nation's history, one Senator had unlimited fillibustering power. Ditto for the House, but not for that long there. It was only later that it was dropped to 2/3rds majorities and then 60% to end a fillibuster. If the old rules were still in effect, you could have 99 Senators opposed to a fillibuster, and that one guy could keep it going.

[A18]

It's very easy to beat the fillibuster - declare it unconstitutional, which it is.

[Lunar]

It's very easy to beat the fillibuster - declare it unconstitutional, which it is.

The GOP doesn't have that power.

The fillibuster isn't magical.  Just wait for Democrats to give in.

[A18]

No, they can declare the fillibuster of a judicial appointment out of order with a simple majority.

[nclib]

Bush is preparing to renominate all the judges that Democrats didn't want to vote on.  About 20 of them.

Now in the 1970s, Democrats changed the filibuster rule from 66 to 60.  Now Republicans are thinking of changing that to something lower, possibly 55 or so.

Would you support this course of action to force a vote in Senate?  I mean, it isn't a difficult concept.  President nominates judges, Senate VOTES on them, not TALK endlessly for years at a time.

I support keeping the filibuster as is and hope the Democrats keep filibustering the most extreme nominees.

A judge should have to be confirmed by more than a simple majority to avoid a tyranny of long representation of 51% of the country.

Besides, 62 Senators represent states where Bush won the popular vote (even though Bush won 286 electoral votes). If 40 Senators are able to sustain a filibuster, they would likely represent more than 270 electoral votes.

[Richard]

I support keeping the filibuster as is and hope the Democrats keep filibustering the most extreme nominees.

A judge should have to be confirmed by more than a simple majority to avoid a tyranny of long representation of 51% of the country.

Maybe you should amend the Constitution then.  Until then, 51% is what is required.

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

What the minority "wants" is meaningless in a representative Republic.

[Lunar]

What the minority "wants" is meaningless in a representative Republic.

There's millions of checks on the majority in this representative republic.  The Constitution, the Senate, etc.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I support fillibustering.  I'd like it to be back up to 66.

Nothing says "minority rights" like reading the telephone book!

I agree with you.

However, I suspect it will be irrelevant as a number of Democrats in the Senate are rethinking fillibustering Bush's nominees. 

They saw what happened to Dashle.

[Lunar]

I agree too.  I doubt they have much backbone unless they feel the public will support them.

They're probably mostly trying to castrate bills with threats of fillibustering.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Actually, there are two distinct camps of Senate Democrats,

One fells that the states they represent are so heavily Democrat that they have a free ride.  They will push for fillibusters.

A second ground is distinctly aware that they can be beaten, and many of they are willing to compromise,