We should pass a constitutional amendment requiring US Senate confirmation vote on USSC nominees

[nkpolitics1212]

2/3 majority= 67 votes.
This will force a President to pick a judicial nominee that is not an ideologue.

[RhodeIslandOne]

1. Ok, and when we have the WH, then what?n/m

[Freddie]

2. And a time limit

When the vacancy must be filled, to prevent the next stolen seat.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

5. +1000

There MUST be a clause in the Constitution that requires the Senate to offer their advice and consent within "X" amount of time. The way it is written seemed like they should have been required to do it anyway but apparently not well-written enough to force them to do it.

[Freddie]

6. There was a lot the founding fathers couldn't anticipate

When having criminals running all branches of government.

[onenote]

7. how would that work?

They vote, don't confirm. New nomination. Don't confirm. Rinse and repeat.

[MineralMan]

3. Another futile suggestion.

Look up what it takes to create a new amendment, and then look at the current Congress.

Then, contact your local Democratic Party organization and volunteer to do something that will actually help. Thanks.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

4. The OP is putting forth an idea

What's wrong with that? Nobody is saying that it's easy.

[onenote]

8. Actually, no one is saying it is remotely possible.

Why not propose an amendment that says all Supreme Court nominees have to be Democrats, if we're not worrying about what is realistic.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

9. Isn't this just a discussion board?

[onenote]

10. Yes. And people are discussing the merits, or lack thereof

of the OP's proposal.

It's not an echo board.