I'm really just pointing out that there are two sides of this issue, and that neither is a side I like. As I believe I stated, the filibuster remaining as is is the lesser of two evils, and I would keep it as is if it were up to me. But to address your points:
5% is obstructionism when the judiciary is so under"staffed" that significant numbers of meritorious claims are being dismissed or refused cert in my circuit, and it's very difficult to achieve justice in a large number of the claims that do get heard! Liberal minded people tend especially not to like these things...
I think a couple, maybe a handful of Clinton's nominees were blocked? Either way, the point is, that's kind of irrelevant for the purposes of fixing the problem - we can't just let this go on without stopping to think because the other guy did it first.
And that's all I'm advocating - stopping to think. Something does need to be done, either within the nomination process or maybe on an even larger scale if things were done my way (as in, keep the judiciary's power in check such that judges aren't making political decisions from the bench, and they won't be as controversial). This is a proposal I'm not particularly fond of, though I unabashedly state that I do not believe the filibuster was intended for this purpose and that it is not a *good* thing. For now, it is a necessary evil that has come to bear because of how jurisprudence has evolved. It's definitely worth thinking about ways to improve the situation.
no subject
5% is obstructionism when the judiciary is so under"staffed" that significant numbers of meritorious claims are being dismissed or refused cert in my circuit, and it's very difficult to achieve justice in a large number of the claims that do get heard! Liberal minded people tend especially not to like these things...
I think a couple, maybe a handful of Clinton's nominees were blocked? Either way, the point is, that's kind of irrelevant for the purposes of fixing the problem - we can't just let this go on without stopping to think because the other guy did it first.
And that's all I'm advocating - stopping to think. Something does need to be done, either within the nomination process or maybe on an even larger scale if things were done my way (as in, keep the judiciary's power in check such that judges aren't making political decisions from the bench, and they won't be as controversial). This is a proposal I'm not particularly fond of, though I unabashedly state that I do not believe the filibuster was intended for this purpose and that it is not a *good* thing. For now, it is a necessary evil that has come to bear because of how jurisprudence has evolved. It's definitely worth thinking about ways to improve the situation.