re: #304 rwmofo

So, the NY Times thinks those mean old Republicans need to jump on the Obama bandwagon and approve his judicial nominations forthwith. Ya see, the filibuster should NOT be abused by conservative Senators.

“The Senate’s power to advise and consent on federal judicial nominations was intended as a check against sorely deficient presidential choices. It is not a license to exercise partisan influence over these vital jobs by blocking confirmation of entire slates of well-qualified nominees offered by a president of the opposite party.”

Well, unless the nominee is a conservative.

“A filibuster is a radical tool. It’s easy to see why Democrats are frightened of it. But from our perspective, there are some things far more frightening. One of them is Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court.”

Nope. No hypocrisy to see here. Move along.

I say the filibuster needs to be changed in the following major way…
For every week that a filibuster has been in action, the number of votes needed to reach cloture decreases by one… though it goes back up to 60 if any changes are made to the bill (and starts decreasing again down to 59 next week)

Is there ANY issue that is so complex it can’t be explained to the American public to the extent that the majority of the senate can safely act on it after two and a half months?