Quote:
Originally Posted by wolf
If the issue is the qualifications of the various nominees, shouldn't those qualifications be the matter under discussion rather than just filibustering to avoid voting on the nominee?
|
At the moment, the Democrats have no significant way to say "Hello, we have concerns about the qualifications of your nominees, and wish to have them taken seriously" without filibustering. The few moderate Republicans will not break ranks without serious provocation, and with their support, any nominee can be whisked through on a party-line vote.
As noted above, this is why the Dems have given ground on the vast majority of nominees and not raised significant opposition to the qualifications, choosing to filibuster only a small minority of objectionable nominees as their sole means of meaningful dissent. Choosing to renominate blocked judges and hammer them through is strictly a power play, and one that makes the Pubs' "Stop objecting so we can get back to the normal business of the Senate" arguments hypocritical. THEY picked the fight by deliberately renominating judges that they knew would cause this showdown, rather than sending up floods of "compromise" candidates who would be, in reality, probably no better than the likes of Owen or Brown.