"Do we really want have a system where judicial nominees need 60 votes?"

Dick Shelbie (R-Alabama) asked that. All I can think is... YES!

These holes in the judicial system have always been political. That;'s not an issue. But a simple 51 vote should NOT appoint any judicial nominee to a position of potetially lifelong power and control over interpretation of the Constitution. There's too much room for abuse.

Much as I'd love liberal judges, it's much more reasonable and realistic to have moderate judges- moderate in every way. The problem is the Bush Corps aren't interested in that, only in squeezing their right-wing nominations past while they have the chance.

The current system works well at keeping extremeist candidates from life long positions.

Yes, 60 is a good number, for both sides.

Scalia, Rehnquist and Thomas?

Rehnquist was confirmed as Associate Justice in 1972 by a vote of 68-26, and was later confirmed as Chief Justice in 1986 by a vote of 65-33. Antonin Scalia was confirmed by the Senate in 1986 with a *unanimous* vote, though this is largely due to the attention being focused on Rehnquist's nomination to Chief Justice.

Thomas, however, was confirmed 52-48 after a tie in the committee.

Otherwise, mob rule.

I'll get back to playing the Fillibuster Drinking Game. Every time you see an over-55 white guy complaining, you take a shot.

...actually, that's the Republican drinking game! :evilgrin:

And yes, I realize the same can be said for our side. But I feel damn nasty, and we've been playing nice for too long.

Otherwise, 51 will do for me. :-)

We do it to them, they do it to us.

The real issue is to win back the White House and make the appointments. That power is devalued if payback is involved.

it would be even higher. When 250,000 people in Wyoming have the same voice as 15 million people in California we have to make sure a real majority approves our judges.

read "How Democratic is the American Constitution?" by Robert Dahl, professor emeritus at Yale. Good book, very intellectually stimulating.

The Constitution was ratified by the states, not by the people.

Therefore, many safeguards were put in to protect the rights of the several states. These powers have been whittled away to the point where the state powers left don't make much sense.

We got rid of the major power of the states, but there are still some remnant powers that don't really fit in our revised system. Therefore, a pretty thorough rewriting is in order.

BTW - the biggest change in my opinion was not the Civil War, but was the 17th Amendment. Most people just pass over the Direct Election of Senators, but it was a huge change to our system of government. Before the 17th Amendment, the state legislatures elected their senators. This was the way the states were able to make sure nothing happened against their interests in Washington. Not only did they have a house of congress, but it was the house that could filibuster legislation they didn't like. It was a real power the states enjoyed and it gave the legislatures control not only of their own states, but a big chunk of control of Washington too. Once the 17th Amednment was ratified that balance flipped. Not only did Washington control the capital, but it could now exert its influence more into the states.

This country has prospered and progressed under the current rules. Only those who regret or resent that prosperity and progress see a need for change.

Something foul like Clarence Thomas can happen..

what a piece of slime!

A shameful episode in the life of the Senate, and one that Arlen Specter should never be able to live down.

The "60" votes the Repubs are bitching about is the number needed to break a filibuster. Those Senate rules have served the U.S. well for over 200 years; there's no need to fiddle with them now. Go change your nappies, Pugs, and ask President Stupidhead to nominate some folks who are actually qualified to sit on the federal bench. Crybabies.

I don't listen to anything Shelby has to say since he made the statement "We have Osama on the Run" just a few months prior to 9/11.

allow the new Democratic president next year to have a cabinet.

The government needs people to run it.

not be prudent, if the case is the latter, I wouldnt put it past them.

They could easily find 40 votes to totally shut down the Senate when our guy gets in the WH.

Here's how this works. The Democrats blocked all of four judges with fillibusters that were really half-assed. Now I'm by no means calling the democrats weak but I'm saying that the majority did little to stop the fillibusters. Why? Because Bill Frist has the common sense to know that wasting several days of Senate time over four judges is not worth it. Then Karl Rove tells Frist that he needs to stand up the Democrats (It's fact that Frist is another Bush/Rove flunkee because even the Republicans admit that they got him his job). Frist decides to pull this little stunt as a half-assed attempt to break the fillibuster by demonizing the Democrats. The current system works perfectly fine as far as I'm concerned. When we control the White House and the Senate I think we can deal with Republicans fillibustering our judges without too much trouble.

mistaken post

nt

Why don't we do away with the separation of powers? (Oops, the Bushes do that all the time.)

If you live in a dominated state your vote doesn't count. That's such bullshit.

least we forget the asscrack's disgusting lies about him.