CTLawGuy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-17-05 11:04 PM
Original message |
Senate Democrats should take care of the judicial filibuster problem |
|
once and for all.
pass an amendment or rule requiring 2/3 majority approval to appoint a judge or justice.
That will give the Repugs their up and down vote.
Plus it will ensure that judges appeal to those across the political spectrum.
|
iamjoy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-17-05 11:08 PM
Response to Original message |
1. I Kind Of Like This Idea |
|
Because judicial appointments are for life and SHOULD have broad support.
I think it would involve changing the constitution though.
In any case, it isn't likely because the Republicans are in control now and see no need to work with Democrats any more than necessary to make themselves look good (oh, look at us, aren't we bi-partisan)
|
xray s
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-17-05 11:09 PM
Response to Original message |
2. I think you have something there |
|
Since judges are appointed for life, and their rulings transcend administrations, I think some sort of super majority to appoint them should be the law. Maybe 60% instead of 65%.
|
CTLawGuy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-17-05 11:10 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
|
2/3 is generally more than any ONE party will have in the US senate. So it forces a bipartisan consensus on ANY judge.
|
nothingshocksmeanymore
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-17-05 11:15 PM
Response to Original message |
|
If that were the case, I would venture to guess almost all of Bush's pics would be confirmed right now. Even 2/3 consensus is too long when one can stack courts long past the foreseeable future. I'd rather we have the war we have and that they will have when we are the majority again.
|
CTLawGuy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-17-05 11:36 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
|
than 2/3 to filibuster
hence, its HARDER for the Repugs to confirm with 2/3s than for them to face the filibuster, which only requires 2/5.
|
Selatius
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-17-05 11:19 PM
Response to Original message |
5. It looks good on paper, but it's gonna be a bitch to bring to life |
|
This involves taking back both Houses of Congress as well as many state legislatures and governorships throughout the whole country, and that's an incredibly tall order.
Personally though, my priorities would lie with campaign finance reform, election reform, and abolishing the Electoral College. That would be the first wave of legislation I'd like to see pushed through. I believe it should be the top priority. Once this is done, then we could tackle this issue.
|
Hippo_Tron
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Mar-18-05 12:58 AM
Response to Original message |
7. I like the current system |
|
Acceptable judges require 51 votes, dispicable ones require 60.
|
dolstein
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Mar-18-05 01:03 AM
Response to Original message |
8. And how exactly would the Democrats pass this? |
|
After all, currently it only takes 60 votes (the number of votes required for cloture) to approval a judicial nominee. Why on earth would the Republican majority choose to hand the Democrats even more power?
|
CTLawGuy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Mar-18-05 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
9. they probably wouldn't |
|
but they should suggest it as a solution. I think it would have support from the american people.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sat May 11th 2024, 04:05 AM
Response to Original message |