Why can't we just block judicial nominees in committee?

[TheFarseer]

That seems to be what the republicans did with Clinton. Did they change the rules? Does anyone have a link to proof of this?

[bahrbearian]

1. Yes they changed the Rules it use to be 6 committee members,

where needed to pass committee, now only 5. No one brings this up in MSM.

[delhurgo]

2. Republicans controlled the senate when Clinton was Pres.

They control the senate now, so, I'm sure you realize now, democrats can't just hold them up in committee because they aren't in the majority. Republicans have one more vote which gives them majority rule every time. The only way would be for a republican to go against their party. Never happen with appellate judges... possible, but still unlikely, for Supreme Court though.

I don't think the rules were changed re judge committee, that was for ethics investigations.

[TheFarseer]

3. I thought comitees were made up of an equal number

from both parties? No?

[Nite Owl]

4. No, it's proportional

and the majority has the chair and sets the rules. They get to decide what can go before the committee for example.

[delhurgo]

5. I don't know for a fact, but I was under the impression

that the majority party had at least one more vote, 6 to 5 - and thats the way it has always been, or at least for a long time.

Like I said, the equal number of votes (5 to 5) that was changed was for ethics investigations, specifically regarding Delay - and that was for the House anyhow.

I can't say for a fact though, I'm not an expert. But don't you think if it was that easy that they'd do it? They wouldn't risk the filibuster if they could just block in the committee. I'm pretty sure I'm right.

[delhurgo]

6. I just want to add briefly since you started this discussion that

I think the goal of making it to the midterms without using the filibuster may have been a wiser move. I think you do everything you can to preserve the 60 votes needed to pass Supreme Court nominees. And if Democrats pick up seats in the midterms, thats only a year and a half away, then it makes it that much more difficult for Frist to use the nuclear option. There's even optimistic talk of re-taking control.

The appellate judges are a big deal, but nowhere near what the Supreme Court is. Imagine the big controversy theres going to be when Bush nominates an extremist to the Supreme Court, and your thinking about the fact that he only needs 50 votes now instead of 60 - I think there will be alot of Democrats wishing then that the filibuster wasn't nuked because of a couple appellate court judges.

Maybe Reid has the votes though, who knows. If he does, then hats off tho him - he's a great leader.