Anybody feel nervous that the nuclear option thing's gonna boomerang on us? Republicans are striving to get the filibuster removed from judicial appointments, right? What happens when Republicans replace Rhenquist (who, I suspect, is patiently waiting for the filibuster slap-down to occur before he retires to a deathbed so his replacement can come online), then get voted out of office... and the next DemocRAT President (Hillary) gets to appoint 4 justices, as there are at least that many old enough to die or quit during the next term. Republicans wouldn't be able to fight them if the Senate goes left with the President.

Imagine a SCOTUS that would crush the Second Amendment... Could be the beginning of the end of an era for America. The highest judicial body in the land is long overdue for a complete makeover. I only hope this makeover can occur without the court turning into an overtly left-wing body.

ETA: post 777 - is this a triple lucky post?

It's a definite concern.

I want ultra conservative judges on the Federal Appeals courts, but it's a fact that government is cyclical and sooner or later the Dems will be the party in power. I'd hate for the Republicans to write the next leftist president a blank check. Once it's been removed, there will be no putting it back.

Quoted: It's a definite concern. I want ultra conservative judges on the Federal Appeals courts, but it's a fact that government is cyclical and sooner or later the Dems will be the party in power. I'd hate for the Republicans to write the next leftist president a blank check. Once it's been removed, there will be no putting it back.

The problem with that reasoning is that it (sort of) assumes that the filibuster has been available as a tool to stop lefty judicial appointments in the past. It hasn't!

The only judicial filibuster ever (afaik) was against Fortas's elevation from Justice to Chief Justice. Nobody has ever been entirely kept off the bench by a filibuster. People have been voted down - in up or down votes; people have withdrawn their names or had them withdrawn when it appeared they lacked adequate support or were facing ugly hearings; but as I say, other than Fortas's promotion, I know of no use of the filibuster to torpedo a judicial nominee.

The Republic did not founder altogether during prior periods of Democrat/Antifreedom ascendancy. It will survive them in the future, or it doesn't deserve to.

No, because the Dems will do if they get back in power.  Republicans play fair, but Democrats do not.

Not really Liberals already dominate our courts Bush is only trying to restore some balance, and the religous right wants him to pick candidates who will rule against Rowe vs. Wade.  The abortion issue is a big reasons why the Dems. are fighting tooth and nail.  

Quoted: Not really Liberals already dominate our courts Bush is only trying to restore some balance, and the religous right wants him to pick candidates who will rule against Rowe vs. Wade.  The abortion issue is a big reasons why the Dems. are fighting tooth and nail.

+1  The abortion issue is the main reason for anti constitution judges.  Look all you may but the Constitution never grants right to abortion.  

The leftists hate  A. people with a clear insight of right and wrong, who are they to judge anyway.  B. people who are succesful, they don't have any need for lib promisses.  C. If you are a Christian to boot then you are the triple threat.     Joe

Quoted: The Republic did not founder altogether during prior periods of Democrat/Antifreedom ascendancy. It will survive them in the future, or it doesn't deserve to.

Yeah, but the Left-hatemongers keep pushing the envelope, so to speak. I am wondering if there will come a time when the shadow-people who love to preach socialism and nanny-statehood will gain the upper hand.

Maybe you're right; at that point, America won't deserve to be a free nation. You are as free, ultimately, as you want to be.

Pffft.  No.  We're in the right, the Democrats are acting like children.  Do what you'd do to a troublesome child, knee-cap them.

Quoted: Anybody feel nervous that the nuclear option thing's gonna boomerang on us? Republicans are striving to get the filibuster removed from judicial appointments, right? What happens when Republicans replace Rhenquist (who, I suspect, is patiently waiting for the filibuster slap-down to occur before he retires to a deathbed so his replacement can come online), then get voted out of office... and the next DemocRAT President (Hillary) gets to appoint 4 justices, as there are at least that many old enough to die or quit during the next term. Republicans wouldn't be able to fight them if the Senate goes left with the President. Imagine a SCOTUS that would crush the Second Amendment... Could be the beginning of the end of an era for America. The highest judicial body in the land is long overdue for a complete makeover. I only hope this makeover can occur without the court turning into an overtly left-wing body. ETA: post 777 - is this a triple lucky post?

No it is needed and should have been done in February.

For the first time in the history of this country the Democrats have used the filibuster to block appellate judge appointments…

The only time a filibuster was ever even used to block and Presidential Judicial appointment was to block Abe Fortus appointment Chief Justice, Fortus was already a Supreme Court Justice. The only reason this happen was the Republicans found out along with being be a slimy corrupt SOB that Fortus had been briefing LBJ on Supreme Court cases… these briefing were no doubt in conflict with Fortus’s Constitutional duty and unethical. Johnson pulled the Chief Justice nomination…

The Democrats attempt to wholesale use the filibuster for the first time in this country’s history to block judicial appointments sends the clear massage they will do anything to get their way on appointments.

DO NOT fool yourself the Democrats will change the rules when they get in to power if they need to. They have already proven they are willing to stand 216 years of history on its head to get their way. And by the way if you do not think the Democrats will try and change the filibuster rules they already have tried… there was attempt in the mid 1990 by many of the same Democrats opposing this Senate rules change do exactly the same thing.

All of this ignores the fact there is NO Constitutional justification to stopping Presidential appointments by use of Senate rules… there is NO provision for this in the Constitution.

Quoted: Pffft.  No.  We're in the right, the Democrats are acting like children.  Do what you'd do to a troublesome child, knee-cap them.

+100 Knee-cap with quick follow up close-line.  

The Democrats are effectively using the filibuster as a VETO which is supposed to be a Presidential power. So get it over with already.

Filibuster really shouldn't be necessary at all.
Either you have the votes or you don't. The way I look at it is we vote people into office to represent us, filibuster undermines' the people's will by undermining our representatives from voting on nominees and bills.

It shouldn't bite anyone on the ass. If anything it might help the gov get something done.

I've never liked the idea of a filibuster.  Idealy if your abilities to convince others that your ideas are good are lacking then they get voted down.  Try again later.  

If it can't stand on its own merit then voted down

If it can then the people have spooken

The filibuster is a way for a minority to block the majority.



On the other hand...

While a filibuster is going on they aren't passing other nonsencical stuff.  Esentaily stoping the gov from doing anything for a while... Which in some cases is a good thing.

Quoted: I've never liked the idea of a filibuster.  Idealy if your abilities to convince others that your ideas are good are lacking then they get voted down.  Try again later.   If it can't stand on its own merit then voted down If it can then the people have spooken The filibuster is a way for a minority to block the majority. On the other hand... While a filibuster is going on they aren't passing other nonsencical stuff.  Esentaily stoping the gov from doing anything for a while... Which in some cases is a good thing.

You see this is another bonus of the Republicans doing this… the Democrats have promised to slow down the Senate and block legislation.

Of course that is like a heroin addict promising to quit cold turkey.

Quoted: +1  The abortion issue is the main reason for anti constitution judges.  Look all you may but the Constitution never grants right to abortion.

Nor does it grant you a right to drive a car, or own a home, or a right to do anything. The Constitution states all powers not reserved by the feds go down to the states, then to the people. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not in favor of abortion myself, but it's not the goverments business.

-Storm

Quoted: I've never liked the idea of a filibuster.  Idealy if your abilities to convince others that your ideas are good are lacking then they get voted down.  Try again later.   If it can't stand on its own merit then voted down If it can then the people have spooken The filibuster is a way for a minority to block the majority. On the other hand... While a filibuster is going on they aren't passing other nonsencical stuff.  Esentaily stoping the gov from doing anything for a while... Which in some cases is a good thing.

Also, there used to be something of an "art" associated with a filibuster (a "good" one, at least).  Now, they essentially just say "filibuster".  

The only analogy I can think of at the moment would be if the MLB were to go with tee-ball setups at home plate.