The Constitution says "advise and consent". Not "supermajority", et cetera. The Senate has an OBLIGATION to say "yea" or "nay". Refusing to let nominees come up for a vote is an abuse of their constitutional perogative.

It's amazing that some people claim that the Democrats still represent the majority of Americans. Given the consistent losses that the Democrats have taken in election after election since 1994, it's also not a very rational viewpoint. I'm reminded of that picture of Tom Dascle after one of the elections, sitting alone backstage, with his head in his hands.

I would just like someone to explain to me why a judicial nominee that will garner 51 votes or more in the senate should not be confirmed. In the constitution they only need 51 votes. Please explain to me why the nominees should not be confirmed if they are able to get the votes required.

Because the Constitution gave the Senate the power to create it's own rules of debate.

and because of that they shouldn't modify it? i don't understand your answer to the question.

Republican Filibusters Of Nominees Reported To The Senate Floor In The Past 40 years.


http://www.leahy.senate.gov/issues/n...libusters.html

No, they can modify it if they want.
But then the Democrats can insist on every piece of legislation being fully read.
When legislation runs at 4000 pages or so.... Business can be slowed down a bit.
That is what the nuclear option is.

If the Republicans remove the gentlemens rules of the filibuster, the democrats insist on every detail.

Just curious. Why would the GOP filibuster nominees from a GOP Prez?

I am absolutely sick of the GOP changing the rules to serve only their means. Removing the filibuster would be completely radical and very, very unsettling in general. Do they not know that one day they will be on the "losing" team? What will they do then?

Who says people in the same party always agree? The Carter years were famous for all the times the Democratically-controlled Congress voted against Carter's legislative agenda. It happens in the GOP too, even though it's never gotten as bad for them as it was for Carter way back when.

So because the Senate can create it's rules of debate, they can ignore their Constitutional duty to advise and consent?

Rules of debate are NOT Constitutional obligations. They have a Constitutional duty to advise and consent. Senate rules take a second seat to Constitutional duties every time.

They have NEVER been put in because of impartiality. They are placed there by the executive branch because it is the right of the executive to check the judicial. Now, of course presidents will put those judges who they agree with in there, it's one of the powers you get. It would be unconstitutional for the president to put someone in place of an already standing judge.

And as for your statement "then they are not in the job for what is truly in the best interest of the country, but rather what promotes their political party more", have you ever thought their own self interest is what they VIEW as the best interest for the country? Judges in the Supreme Court level interpret the law and the rational of those who created it. Their sole job is what you are hammering them for, which is putting their own views on the law's intention and/or constitutionality.