Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Judicial Filibusters good idea?
America's Debate > Archive > Political Debate Archive > [A] General Political Debate
Google
lordhelmet
Many democrats have recently adopted the line of argument that "is it too much to ask to require that lifetime appointments to the bench require 60 votes in the senate?". Recently, Senator Lieberman has made a comment as did Senator Boxer as quoted..

QUOTE
"So We're Saying We Think You Ought To Get Nine Votes Over The 51 Required. That Isn't Too Much To Ask For Such A Super Important Position. There Ought To Be A Super Vote. Don't You Think So?" (Sen. Barbara Boxer, Remarks At MoveOn.org Rally, Washington, D.C., 3/16/05)


The questions for debate are:

Should lifetime judicial appointments require 60 votes for confirmation? What would the constitutional basis be for such a requirement?
Google
Jaime

Topic closed...


Reason: Duplicate topic.

Recommended action:
Please use the search feature to locate a similar topic. If you are unable to find a similar topic, please contact the staff member who closed the topic by clicking the PM button below this post.

Helpful links:
- Simple Search
- Advanced Search
- Starting New Topics
- Survival Guide
- The Rules
- Staff Directory

Note: This is an automated response.



This topic is covered here: Criteria for supermajority votes, What criteria would you establish?
and also here: Filibustering Judicial nominations, Is it constitutional?
and also here: Advise and Consent
Google
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2008 Invision Power Services, Inc.