Or has the Senate changed the rules without officially changing the written rules, like they did with
judicial filibusters?
Here he was in 2005, pleading with Senate Republicans to change the rules to forbid
judicial filibusters:
Not exact matches
Republicans need just a simple 51 - vote total to confirm a
judicial nominee after the
filibuster on lower - level court
judicial nominees was killed by Democrats when they last controlled the Senate in an effort to help move along some of Obama's nominees more quickly.
Moreover, when the Senate changed its
filibuster rules in 2013, so that
judicial nominees were exempt, the change did not extend to Supreme Court nominees.
@KDog - Look at the historical record -
filibusters invoked, the number of
judicial nominations that were passed / filled historically.
In November 2013, Senate Democrats used the nuclear option to eliminate
filibusters on executive branch nominations and federal
judicial appointments other than those to the Supreme Court.
On November 21, 2013, the Senate used the so - called «nuclear option», voting 52 - 48 — with all Republicans and three Democrats voting against — to eliminate the use of the
filibuster on executive branch nominees and
judicial nominees, except to the Supreme Court.
The answer is that since November 2013 a simple majority has sufficed because of the Senate's decision to end the use of the
filibuster in respect of all nominees to Federal
judicial and executive branch positions other than to the Supreme Court itself.
Axelrod also said Sunday that Senate Republicans should not
filibuster Sotomayor's nomination, even though Democrats in the Senate have mounted
filibusters against Republican
judicial nominees in recent years.
Congress also uses modifications of straight Robert's Rules voting like the
filibuster, holds, Senatorial privilege for
judicial appointments, supermajority voting on treaties, «fast track voting» without amendments and similar variants.
«As a member of the bipartisan «Gang of 14,» I will follow our agreement that
judicial nominees should be
filibustered only under extraordinary circumstances,» Nelson said in a statement.
A Brown victory would instantly deny Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid the 60 - vote super-majority he needs in order to prevent the Republican Senators from
filibustering key votes on healthcare reform and the President's
judicial nominees.
She was twice nominated to U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, only to see her first nomination
filibustered and her second sunk by charges of
judicial activism by Senate Republicans over gun industry litigation during her time as solicitor general.
He also led Sierra Club's work on
judicial nominations, including the
filibusters of 2003 — 2006 and litigation over the constitutionality of recess appointments for federal judges, and was counsel in In re Cheney.
Of course, in light of the current composition of the U.S. Senate and the current President, and the precedent that the «nuclear option» can abolish the
filibuster for some kinds of
judicial appointments (a parliamentary ruling which is almost surely not justiciable due to express language vesting procedural questions in the U.S. Senate in the Senate and not the courts in the U.S. Constitution), this question is unlikely to present itself any time soon.
As someone who can watch these developments unfold at something of a comfortable distance, what are your views on the
judicial confirmation battles underway in the U.S. Senate, the use of
filibusters, and the use of recess appointments to place
filibustered nominees onto the federal appellate courts?