Which side is approaching the issue of judicial filibuster correctly?

[Smash255]

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.

The GOP blocked MORE THAN SIXTY of CLinton's judges who would have been confirmed if votes were held.

[Smash255]

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.

The GOP blocked MORE THAN SIXTY of CLinton's judges who would have been confirmed if votes were held.

 

I'm completely in favor of abolishing all minority prevention of a vote, but I will point out that the GOP was in the MAJORITY for 6 of Clinton's eight years. 

They were in the majority, however their was still enough support from moderate Republicans to get the judges approved.  The heads of the party (Lott, Frist & a few others) knew that so they blocked the vote.  In both cases their were judges which if a full senate voted on would have been confirmed, but were blocked in procedural manuevers & not allowed to have a full vote on.

[Smash255]

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.

The GOP blocked MORE THAN SIXTY of CLinton's judges who would have been confirmed if votes were held.

 

I'm completely in favor of abolishing all minority prevention of a vote, but I will point out that the GOP was in the MAJORITY for 6 of Clinton's eight years. 

They were in the majority, however their was still enough support from moderate Republicans to get the judges approved.  The heads of the party (Lott, Frist & a few others) knew that so they blocked the vote.  In both cases their were judges which if a full senate voted on would have been confirmed, but were blocked in procedural manuevers & not allowed to have a full vote on.

It depends on the method, but I'm 100% in favor of ending "blue slips" and unlimited debate.  There are some procedural methods, like postponing indefinitely and laying on the table which I do favor, because these require majority action.

What happened with Clinton wasn't majority action, it was the act of a few within the majority, not the majority as a whole