Which side is approaching the issue of judicial filibuster correctly?

[A18]

Republicans. The filibuster was never used to block judicial nominees that would otherwise be confirmed before. The Democrats are completely out of power, so now they want to stack the courts with Kennedy/Stevens-types so they can legislate from the bench.

Just beat back the obstructionists and be done with it.

[A18]

Obviously any "judicial review" (i.e. made up crap) concerning the ruling should be laughed at and ignored.

[A18]

The filibuster has been weakened countless times. This is just another example, and since the filibuster has never even been used like this before, it's piss poor argument to talk about tradition.

[A18]

One is way too much. You're the minority party.

[A18]

This is all about the U.S. Supreme Court.

The judiciary has no authority to review Senate business, which is specifically made an autonomous unit in the Constitution. The Senate is its own supreme court.

[A18]

Well, the Senate could also just interpret the filibuster rule as not applying to presidential appointments.

[A18]

I am quite sure they don't have to, and will not, specify the reason, anyway. Basically, they're just ruling the Democrats out of order for filibustering a presidential appointment.

[A18]

If they're so out of the mainstream, they won't get 50 votes. If they can get 50 votes, they aren't out of the mainstream in the Senate, which is all that matters, as it's the body that confirms judges.

[A18]

Um, nomo, can you follow a point?

[A18]

How dumb. You can't cite political pressures as a reason to allow obstructionism. If senators are influenced by their constituents, I guess the system is working.

[A18]

There will be no filibustering for the SCOTUS, execpt in "extreme cases."

If that's Robert Bork, okay. If it's Scalia, no real deal has been reached, as the Democrats are just lying.

[A18]

There will be no filibustering for the SCOTUS, execpt in "extreme cases."

If that's Robert Bork, okay. If it's Scalia, no real deal has been reached, as the Democrats are just lying.

What in the heck is wrong with Bork? He was a well qualified guy who would have made decisions (for the most part) based on the Constitution. Instead we get stuck with that weasel Kennedy who makes decisions based on international law

Bork was an excellent appointment. By far the most qualified appointment to the SCOTUS in a generation.

That wasn't my point. My point was that they confirmed Scalia, and rejected Bork. Scalia is fine, so if they'll allow a vote on judges like Scalia, that's okay.