Democrats Can Succeed Without the Filibuster

[SeveneightyWhoa]

Democrats Can Succeed Without the Filibuster


July 8 2005
Counterbias.com
Gene C. Gerard


Since the resignation announcement of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, various reporters and pundits have concluded that whomever President Bush nominates will win confirmation. Last week, a reporter for The Washington Post told listeners of National Public Radio that since Republicans control the Senate, Mr. Bush’s nomination would be essentially guaranteed. However, if history is any indication, this is far from certain.

Continue.. http://counterbias.com/338.html

[BattyDem]

1. I'm confused ...

the article says, "At present, Senate Democrats would need to convince 16 Republicans to join them in a filibuster to thwart a Supreme Court nomination."

Since when do the Dems need 16 Repugs for a filibuster? They sustained filibusters before without any Repugs. :shrug:

[Geoff R. Casavant]

2. You're not confused

The article is incorrect. Republicans need 5 Democrats on their side to end a filibuster (need 60), and Democrats need 6 Republicans on their side to defeat any nomination (need 51, so there is no chance of a Cheney tiebreaker).

[BattyDem]

3. Thanks for replying

I was afraid there was some change in the rules or that the "nuclear option" deal went much further than I thought. :scared:

[SeveneightyWhoa]

4. Hmm interesting.

I've contacted the author (Gene C. Gerard) and I'll see what he says. I'll try and get the piece corrected.

Thanks for pointing this out!

[Geoff R. Casavant]

5. I should point out

That I was considering Independent Jim Jeffords as a "Democrat." Democrats alone need 7 others to join them to defeat a nomination, so the article is correct in this respect.

I was intrigued by the notion that the nuclear option compromise might have affected the calculations, but for the life of me I can't figure out where the author comes up with the 16 Republicans. Possibly there is a factor I am missing, or a necessary calculation that was edited out of the article. In any event I look forward to the discussion.