ibenez wrote:
] ] WASHINGTON - The Senate's top leaders have ended their
] ] attempt to find a compromise on
] ] President Bush's stalled judicial nominees, but other
] ] members continued to work on a possible deal to clear
] ] five blocked appeals court appointees and end threats to
] ] change the long-standing filibuster rules.
]
] Just let them vote. If you don't like the nominee, vote down.
] Republicans were guilty of this same thing just a few years
] back - but Democrats/liberals are taking this to a new level.
]
] But this just reinforces the notion that maybe, yeah, we do
] need to change the rules so that losers from either side can't
] filibuster everything. WTF do these people even get paid for
] anymore if they aren't working?

I don't agree. I think the "just vote" story is spin. There is really nothing that elevates voting above the rest of the procedural system other then that its currently in the interest of the Republicans.

If your nominee is so divisive that you can't even get 5 people from the other party to agree to them after making a national issue out of it for months, that person probably shouldn't be a federal judge. I don't really want radical judges. This isn't supposed to be about picking people who will pursue a partisan agenda. I'd prefer to have moderate, professional judges that most people can plainly see are simply going to do a good job. Requiring a 60% majority of the Senate is a good way to ensure that the justice system isn't abused for partisan purposes.

RE: Showdown Over Filibusters Appears Imminent - Yahoo! News