A Compromise: Let Judges Get An Up Or Down Vote

[iamjoy]

let's change the rules.
But we aren't just going to change the filibuster rule, we are going to change the requirements for confirming judicial nominees. No longer is 51 votes (a bare majority) sufficient. Any lifetime appointment must be confirmed by at least 60 senators.


Problem solved?

[forgethell]

1. Yea.

Total victory for the Democrats. I don't, however, think the Rpublicans are going to buy it. What I fail to understand, though, is where we think we are going to be able to "compromise" when they have total control of the field.

I guess I'm just looking for a practical suggestion, one that would work. Only spinlelessness by the Republicans can keep them from riding roughshod over us. I think maybe we need to win an election.

[fob]

2. Uh, that IS the rule for these nominees. 60 votes to confirm, 51

votes is what setting off the nuke is INTENDED to get the Fristians. There are some of these nominees that have had several votes and they could not garner the 60 votes to confirm so they have already had an "up or down" vote PER THE STANDING CURRENT RULES and the end result is a DOWN vote. Owen has had 4 fucking votes and has been on the DOWN side every time! The repukes wanna rule the rules unconstitutional and replace them with 51 votes is OK for a lifetime appointment and BLAMMO!, Owen's FIFTH chance at an "up or down" vote becomes an UP.

The rules you advocate a change TO are the rules the pukes are going to nuke!

[iamjoy]

4. It Isn't 60 Votes To Confirm

It a three-fifths (60 votes) to stop debate (cloture).
Once they actually vote on the judicial nominee, it only takes a majority (51) to confirm. That's a little backward, if you ask me, but what do I know?

[fob]

5. Right, that's what I meant but took too many shortcuts to explain.

Basically they need to have 60 votes if they want to confirm these fuckers due to the filibuster. Of course if Orrin Hatch hadn't changed the blue-slip process from solid to only a reccommendation then these people wouldn't even be getting the damn vote in the first place. Which is how the repukes stalled/killed any chance for an "up or down" vote on Clinton nominees. They didn't have to filibuster so much because the DEMS played by the RULES!

[jody]

3. You don't go far enough.

In 1776 our ancestors declared, "That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." Those sovereign people formed our original states and their representatives declared in the Articles of Confederation, "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence."

Our Constitution was accepted in 1787, but state sovereignty was protected because each state has the same vote in the Senate. Wyoming’s 500,000 citizens have the same vote as California’s 35.5 million. Moreover, 75 percent of our states must ratify a Constitutional amendment to change our supreme law.

Republicans however, want to eliminate the filibuster so that only 51 percent of our senators can appoint activist, conservative judges for life who through interpretation can change our supreme law without having to amend the Constitution.

A worst case scenario is that 50 senators representing about 16% of the population plus Cheney could approve Bush's nominees. Under that worst case scenario, the smallest 13 states representing about 4% of our population could prevent an amendment to our Constitution that would reverse judicial abuse. Note in those 13 smallest states, it takes only a simple majority of about 2% of our population to control a state legislature and through it prevent amendments to our constitution.

If Republicans want to preserve states' rights, they'll require 75 Senate votes to approve federal judges. Even better, require 75% of the 435 members in the House of Representatives to approve lifetime appointments to our judicial branch, that would really insure a judicial branch that represents We the People!