[RWR8189]

In President Clinton's second term, the Republicans confirmed 35 out of 51 nominations to the appellate courts. In Bush's first term, 35 out of 52 have been confirmed. Republicans routinely killed nominations in committee rather than the floor, but there was no practical difference in the result.

No practical difference???

How about the fact that we had the majority in the Senate and rejected nominees in committee that would have just the same been rejected outright on the floor?

There is no practical difference, we're not even talking about the same thing!

[jmaroneps37]

If Frist doesn't pull the triger, he must be replaced immediately. Saxby Chambliss or Jon Kyl come to mind.

[Namyak]

Any person with an elementary grasp of Senate history can see through the lies these people are spewing. Truth is, the filibuster rules have already been altered in the past, and can continue to be altered. Robert "Sheets" Byrd rewrote the rules in 1975 to bring the number of votes necessary for a cloture down to 60 from 67... of course, I still love ambushing clueless liberals by asking them to explain the filibuster to me, and whenever they bring up the magic number "2/3rds" I always jump on them with "But isn't 60 only 3/5ths?". At that point they either have to cede the argument to me that they are clueless as to simple math and the history of the topic they're arguing, or they have to agree with me that Senate rules have been changed in the past for political reasonings and can continue to change. Senate procedural rules are not, as they are so desperately trying to portray, immutable and unchanging.