[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!

[mblaise]

"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?"

good point. one would have to compare '95-'96 (repub. maj.) years with '01-'02 (dem. maj.) sessions.

that said, retiring the filibuster may be a double-edged sword. if the unthinkable happens and the senate goes back to dems in '06 (out of power party gains are typical midterm), the retaliation could get ugly. and god knows what havoc on our judicial system happens if it's hitlery in '08.

[Lancey Howard]

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.

So, the Republican-controlled Senate actually confirmed a slightly higher percentage of Democrat President Clinton's nominees than they have Republican President Bush's nominees ???

How utterly pathetic....