Because we won the Senate, we will be control judicial appointments, and that means it isn't the

[still_one]

same game it was the last two years

[RickFromMN]

1. Can Republicans filibuster judicial nominees?

Why would anyone think the Republicans wouldn't use the filibuster if they could?

[still_one]

3. not if the filibuster rules change

[MrSlayer]

2. We've had the Senate since 2007.

How many of Obama's judges still haven't been given a vote?

If we don't change the rules, nothing will be different than it has been.

[Tx4obama]

4. Here's a LIST

Here (two long lists): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Barack_Obama

The lists have the ones that have been confirmed and those that are still waiting.

Of all of the ones that Pres Obama appointed in 2012 - only two have been confirmed

[MrSlayer]

6. That's my point.

Those assholes won't confirm anyone at all. The Senate rules simply must change or we get nowhere. Obama should recess appoint every judge he has put up.

[Tx4obama]

8. That is not a good solution, because even recess appointments have to eventually be confirmed by ...

by the senate to make them permanent.

Recess appointments would expire at the end of the congressional session.


I do agree that the Senate filibuster rule should be changed January 3, 2013.

[MrSlayer]

9. Well then changing rules is the only way to go.

I'm so tired of losing even when win.

[TheProgressive]

5. This is why we need Senate Rules reform...

No one Senator should have the power to block *anything*

And, the Founders reserved the 2/3 majority vote for *only* the most critical and required thoughtful tasks.

[ashling]

7. "we will be control"?

Will the Republicans be the test group?

And who gets the placebo?

[bluestate10]

10. IT is if the 60 vote rule stays in place. nt