Re: "never filibustered when majority are in favor"

This is the Republican qualification about never filibustering a Supreme Court justice. They have done it, but only when the majority was not in favor of the nominee, right?

In that case, why did they have to filibuster? Just asking -- no "Because they're hacks" responses please, I really want to know what the circumstance was, please!

There would be no need for a filibuster.

They're inadvertently citing polling data, so ask them to cite polls where they filibustered when the majority of the country was in favor of their actions.

Don't know who it was.

Well, SOMEONE should ask.

they just can't help themselves.

they lie no matter how idiotic it sounds.

The situation referred to involved Abe Fortas. His nomination to become Chief Justice (he already was an associate justice) was filibustered by the repubs. The vote on cloture was 45 for and 43 against (and in those days I think you need 2/3 vote to get cloture). The Democrats held a majority in the Senate, and there is no way of knowing with certainty what the outcome would've been, although the feeling at the time was that Fortas would've squeaked through.

How do we know that? Well, try out this quote from the Repub leadership at the time:

"Then-Sen. Howard H. Baker Jr. (R-Tenn.), a Fortas opponent, also hinted that his side felt it lacked a majority. Defending the newly launched filibuster, Baker said: "On any issue the majority at any given moment is not always right."

So, it would appear that at the time, the repubs felt that Fortas would get confirmed if it came to a vote.

onenote