Is it worth changing (even killing) filibuster to get liberal SC justices?

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

As the rules stand now, Obama's SC nominees will get Bork'd. There's no way the Rs will let the SC turn more liberal, more female, and less white.

So, is it worth weakening or killing the filibuster to change the face and heart of the SC?

Hells to the YES it is!!

[Anthony McCarthy]

2. Yes

Not to mention other appointments and passing laws.

And getting rid of anonymous holds is almost as important.

[BlueMan Votes]

3. not necessarily.

There are Senators on both sides who feel that a president is entitled to place who they want on the court, barring any actual reasons why the nominee would be unqualified(karen hughes).

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

4. That's a risk, then, that you're willing to take?

Not me.

[BlueMan Votes]

12. it's not a "risk" that is mine, or yours to take.

unless of course, you have some kind of relationship with the POTUS that we're not privy to...??

[ieoeja]

9. They must be new then.

Because when Senate Republicans had only 40 members during Obama's first two years in office, not one Republican Senator voted to end a filibuster even one time. Even the Maine Republicans who said they agreed with Obama would not oppose their Party when it came to a filibuster.

So which Republican Senators have been replaced by an "America before Party" Republican?

[BlueMan Votes]

10. refresh my memory- how many of Obama's SC nominees were filibustered in his first term?

it seems to me that the repugs in the senate ALREADY allowed him to put two women on the bench. without a problem.

[Warpy]

5. Uh, YES!

While I'd write it a little differently, a suspension of the filibuster in times of war or national emergency defined as massive disaster or financial collapse or when more than 50 bills are being filibustered, the filibuster is to be suspended for the balance of that Congress.

It would kick in automatically when evil bastards tried to abuse it. It would keep them one hell of a lot more motivated to compromise on a lot of bills to keep from reaching that magic 50 filibuster mark. However, it would remain intact for future Congresses that weren't full of obstructionists who filibustered bills just because they could.

[chowder66]

6. I wouldn't say kill the filibuster but it does need to be ammended.

It is overly abused and needs to be fixed in a way that minimizes abuse. That is doable in my opinion.

[Ken Burch]

13. You could use the model that the British used for House of Lords reform

They finally decided that any piece of legislation that is passed by the House of Commons three times(even if the Lords keeps defeating it, as they did over and over again with the Irish Home Rule bills, thus making the Lords responsible for all of the misery in Northern Ireland in the 20th Century)would finally become law.

We could do that.

[get the red out]

7. Hell Yes

[Swede Atlanta]

8. I would not eliminate it entirely but bring it back to its original intent and form.....

Our entire political system is designed to protect the interests and rights of minorities.

States with small(er) populations are protected from domination by more populous states by having the House membership allocated on the basis of population but the Senate being comprised of two Senators from each state regardless of population.

The electoral college system was created both because the Founders did not think the populace should directly choose the President because they simply couldn't be well informed or educated enough to make that decision as well as a means to protect the less populous states to a certain extent.

The filibuster was another embodiment of that protection by giving the minority party a means to prevent cloture and therefore an up or down vote. It used to require the minority party to actually physically filibuster by keeping "debate" open. If you watch Mr. Smith goes to Washington with James Stewart you will see that concept in action.

It used to be you only had to have 51 votes for cloture so the physical filibuster was necessary. But now the Senate rules require 60 votes, something that virtually neither party in the majority will ever have. That said, the Democrats, even in minority have not abused the privilege of the filibuster the way the Republicans have, especially under chin-less McConnell as minority leader.

So I would not want the privilege eliminated completely because it is likely the Democrats will be in the minority again one day and it might be useful.

But I think we need to find ways of limiting its abuse. First thing we need to go back to simple majority or at least not a super majority required for cloture. Then force the minority party to actually filibuster which means keeping debate open. They used to keep cots they would bring in because someone in the minority party has to keep talking even if that means reading the telephone book, etc.

[Ken Burch]

11. When the Dems were in the minority in the Bush era, they NEVER used the damn filibuster

Bernie Sanders was the only one who ever used it for progressive purposes...the rest were all too cowardly and too committed to the defeatist notion that we could only regain power by default, as opposed to actually trying to win the argument.

The party has grown a bit of a spine lately, but will it survive in minority status?

[Still Sensible]

14. Perhaps not killing it, but certainly

changing the rules so its use is not frivolous as it has been.

[EC]

15. They don't even have

to be liberal judges...normal would be great even.