I say no. It has been a part of politics since the 1830's, and hasn't needed to be eliminated in the nearly 200 years that it has existed. I can bet that the real motive of people who want this taken away is their desire to increase power in the legislative branch. Otherwise there is no other reason.

 

Just remember that more of GWB's judicial nominees have passed (200+) than all of the judges who were approved under the Clinton administration (around 130 in 8 years). Therefore, I don't see the justification for getting these people passed through, since they are almost certainly hardline conservative judges, as I have heard.

That may be but Clinton's success rate of approving judges is higher than GWB and none of Clinton's nominees were ever subject to a filabuster.

you should edit the poll to ask about the filibuster for judicial nominees.

Clinton had 60 some odd number of his judicial nominees fail because of Republican use of Senate rules. How did they do it? Theydenied them committee hearings or votes on numerous nominees. How is that within the advice and consent of the Senate and this is not? Dont tell me half of those people even had been lacking in the necessary qualities to be on the bench. Why do you think the Republicans blocked those nominees? They didnt mind leaving those positions vacant just long enough to allow a Republican president to fill them in.

 

The following Circuit Court nominees from 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000 are in this category: H. Alston Johnson (5th Circuit), James Duffy (9th Circuit), Kathleen McCree-Lewis (6th Circuit), Enrique Moreno (5th Circuit), James Lyons (10th Circuit), Robert Cindrich (3rd Circuit), Stephen Orlofsky (3rd Circuit), Andre Davis (4th Circuit), James Beaty (4th Circuit), and J. Rich Leonard (4th Circuit).

 

Allen Snyder (D.C. Circuit), who was also rated "well-qualified" by the ABA, received a hearing but was not allowed a vote by the Republican-controlled Committee.

 

More than a dozen other Circuit Court nominees with "partial well-qualified" or "qualified" ratings were also defeated by Republicans who blocked their hearings or votes, including Helene White (6th Circuit), Jorge Rangel (5th Circuit), Robert Raymer (3rd Circuit), Barry Goode (9th Circuit), Christine Arguello (10th Circuit), Elizabeth Gibson (4th Circuit), Elana Kagan (D.C. Circuit), James Wynn (4th Circuit), Bonnie Campbell (8th Circuit), Kent Markus (6th Circuit), and Roger Gregory (4th Circuit).

 

Dozens of District Court nominees from 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000 with unanimous "well-qualified" or "qualified" ratings also were blocked by Republican refusal to give them hearings or votes. In all, nearly 60 of President Clinton's judicial nominees were defeated through Republican blocking of hearings and votes, despite their ABA ratings. ... While only two of President Bush's judicial nominees have been defeated in open votes, nearly 60 of President Clinton's judicial nominees were defeated through secret, anonymous holds and other secretive, non-transparent Republican tactics.

 

How is that for a frikkin percentage? They are going to undermine the Senate over ten right win nominees rather than actually try and represent the entire nation.

 

 

Captain hypocrisy strikes again!!

Another thing: When the Democrats had a majority in the Senate, they didn't try to eliminate the minority party's right to filibuster. I don't see a need for it here, either.

Filibusters are the funnest part of Congress.

Filibusters are the funnest part of Congress.

762531[/snapback]

They can be funny...

not only no.

 

 

hell no.

 

 

 

to answer the original question.