johnnycee Wrote: I understand the Senate leader's frustration with the opposition in regards to them being a huge roadblock in the approval of judicial appointments and others, but ,remember ,the Democrats won't be in power forever, and when the GOP either wins the Senate or the Whitehouse, the shoe might seem a bit tight when they have to wear the title of the minority power, so the way it now stands, it now becomes a 1 vote majority to confirm a candidate's approval for either a cabinet post or a Federal Judicial position. I just hope that this does not pave the way down a very slippery slope of stacking the Judiciary in favor of the Majority Political Party.
that guy in Arizona Wrote: At present, however, nearly 60% of these open positions have no nominees, and cannot be filled until nominations are submitted to the Senate.
Schmidt Wrote: L A Citizen --
I don't understand your Roe versus Wade reference. Roe versus Wade is the law of the land. The change in filibuster rules for judicial nominations doesn't affect Supreme Court nominations or any other legislation put forth in the Senate. That is still at the 60 threshold.
And I don't think the rule change will wake up voters because from my experience in canvassing neighborhoods they don't have the foggiest idea what this is all about....and could care less.
L.A. Citizen Wrote: I was using Roe v. Wade as an example in that the filibuster rule change is now open to expansion,,, they'll attempt to expand the new rule if the right wins the senate,,,, just as the filibuster acted as a "second bite at the apple' as it interfered with the separation of powers.... we live under 51% rule of democracy, not 60////// Roe v. Wade is the law of the land by only 1 vote.... it can be reversed and is ripe for attack