Posted on 09/04/2003 8:49:58 AM PDT by CometBaby
Nothing has changed in the rules, what has changed is that 45 dims are sticking together and using the rules to prevent a vote. Under current rules nothing can be done if 41 members stick together.
You tell me what can be done to break this rule. I tell you 24/7 will not do it agaisnt 45 members, like it will against 1 or 2.
BTW It's not an hypothesis it's a fact and you and your buddy seem unable to accept facts, at least you don't refute them you just ask stupid questions.
Lessons of the Estrada Defeat
Legal Theory Blog ^ | September 4, 2003 | Prof. Lawrence Solum
Posted on 09/04/2003 5:47 PM CDT by pogo101
Withdrawal: What Does Estrada's Decision Mean?
BTW, I did a little research re: Fortas and "the earlier filibuster." The fact pattern is:
Fortas is nominated (by LBJ) and confirmed by the Senate. Couple years later, LBJ nominates Fortas for CJ (Chief Justice). GOP and Southern Democrats filibuster, LBJ withdraws the nomination. The basis for the filibuster was NOT Fortas' ideology, rather his honesty and integrity were called into question. FOrtas resigned from the SCOTUS a year later, in the wake of disclosures relating to accepting money, etc.
So, if you're ever confronted with a comment that the Senate used filibuster against a judge, you have the facts.
The Estrada case is different. Bush did not capitulate, and in the wake of that, the Senate failed to deliver its "up or down" advice and consent (or not), after months. Unprecedented, AFAIK.
Of course the ultimate solution to what has become an imperial senate is the repeal of the 17th Amendment.
Interesting times indeed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.