Yes I read the article, and my point is that the same "advise and consent" argument that's used to justify why nominees shouldn't be filibustered, could also have been used against GOP Senators who blocked Clinton appointees. As far as the system being "perverted" by the Dems, why is the system being "perverted" now, but it wasn't when Clinton appointees were blocked?
My entire point is that this move to stop filibustering judicial nominees is extremely shortsighted. Yes, it will accomplish Bush's nominees being confirmed in spite of the minority, but the GOP will eventually rue the day they did away with judicial filibusters. That you can bet on.
This is a classic, textbook case of be careful what you ask for because you just might get it.
By the time that republicnas would rue the day that they blocked filibustering judicial nominations, I submit that the filibuster would not be relevant because looking at the makeup of the courts as they will be slated, any judge appointed will be in no postion to undo what the prospective courts have already done.
Looking at the current trend most states are going red, and those that are going purple are going from purple to red not red to purple. The trend is for conservtives. Besides, if the donks held a workable majortiy they would deploy the nuke themselves, because they were the party who used filibusters to defeat conservative nominees in the first place, after being aginst such measures 6 or 7 years ago.
The GOP has every reason to pull the trigger here.
"Yes I read the article, and my point is that the same "advise and consent" argument that's used to justify why nominees shouldn't be filibustered, could also have been used against GOP Senators who blocked Clinton appointees. As far as the system being "perverted" by the Dems, why is the system being "perverted" now, but it wasn't when Clinton appointees were blocked?"
_____________
Because the Clinton appointees were opposed by a majority of the Senate. Therefore, the Senate was well within its rights to block nominees, because the full Senate would not have approved.
Do you see how different the situation is between the Senate witholding its consent (in the Clinton scenario) and a minority of Senators preventing a majority from approving the president's nominees?
but the GOP will eventually rue the day they did away with judicial filibusters. That you can bet on.
look at the history of the filibuster, your assumptions are wrong.
Fortas was not a filibuster, he had no support and his candidacy for Supreme Justice was withdrawn promptly.
Never have qualified candidates who have been passed on with recommendation by the relevant committee been denied an up/down vote.
This act by the dhimmicrats is a barbarous mangling of the Constitution - clearly, the role of the senate is to Advice And Consent, and they express this via an Up/Down Vote.
We all know the left cannot legislate it's agenda, hence the travesty that is our judicial system these past 35 years. Not just RoeVWade, but a host of others. Do you know that in the recent Mass Courts ruling on Gay Marriage, that this collection of robed ones not only made law from the bench, but also had the audacity to order the Mass legislature to legislate accordingly, with a deadline of compliance to boot???!!!
Do you know that President Bush, shortly after taking office in 2001, presented several candidates some of which were (9 or 11, iirc) nomination hold-overs (2 of which were lib-democrats) fm the previous administration, and that the democrats (remember, Jeffords was independent and the pubbies had no majority then) quickly confirmed the lib candidates and proceeded to hold up the Republican candidates (one of which was Miguel Estrada)?
The dhimmi's have been successful in thier mangling - they reason that sooner or later the pendulum swings back towards them, and whatever prospective gains the current administration can be prevented from achieving just means they will install more leftist amoeba utopian oligarchs on the bench when it comes their turn.
This is outrageous, and you Sir, damned well Know This!
Please give me one example of a Clinton judicial nominee being filibustered. True, some didn't get out of committee but neither did dozens of Republican nominees when the Dems controlled congress.