Why don't Democrats at least stage a filibuster in the Judicial committee?

[bigtree]

prevent it from being voted out? I don't think it's been done before for a nominee to the court. I don't know.

[Skinner]

1. Is that even possible?

I've never heard of such a thing.

[CottonBear]

4. I believe that there is a "pocket filibuster" tactic but I don't know if

it can be used here. It involves one senator and a "blue slip." Perhaps someone can provide more information on this procedure.

[Cocoa]

2. they delayed the vote

I think that's all they could do.

[EFerrari]

3. I would think that the close quarters you work in, in a committee

would make anything like that a very last choice.

[Teaser]

5. That is not in the rules

as far as I know...

[Coexist]

6. I was wrong - here is Leahy's statement about the Pocket Filibuster

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200506/060705.html

[bigtree]

8. so this is that agreement they made to avoid the nuclear option?

They won't do what the republicans did? Great.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

7. It doesn't work that way

I've been following this stuff for over 30 years and a filibuster is always done to prevent the final vote from being taken by the senate.

It has to do with the rules of the senate, which provide for unlimited debate unless 60 members vote to end debate, a process/motion called cloture.

What really galls me about the "nuclear option" first of all is that it is against the rules of the senate to change the rules regarding the current session. If they want to change the rules regarding filibuster, it would not take effect until after the 2006 elections and the beginning of the new congressional session in 2007. The second thing that galls me about the "nuclear option" is that repugs over the years when they were out of power used the filibuster far more than democrats have since 1994 and the democrats didn't squeal like a pack of stuck pigs about it.

[Innocent Smith]

9. The rules prevent it.

nt