True, but you're really dodging the issue here which is the current dysfunctional Congress. There have been a record number of filibusters this past year; Congress hasn't been so divided since the Civil War. Requiring 60 votes (the number required to prevent a filibuster) to pass a bill is against the intentions of the founders. In all cases where more than a majority is required, the founders explicitly noted the ratio (ex: the confirmation of treaties). No ratio is specified for the passage of bills or the confirmation of appointments. Whatever it going on in Congress today, it's not something that was intended by the founders. Hell, filibusters weren't even put into the Senate rules until the early 1900s.
Personally I think the Dems should exercise the nuclear option and amend the constitution to require 3/5 for appointments to the Supreme Court. They used to be confirmed by that much anyway; it's most been under GW Bush that we've had Court appointees pass by narrow margins. Cliton had over 90 votes for all of his and most of Reagan's were unanimous. GW never broke 60.
You're right that the current Congresses have been extraordinary in their dysfunction, but a little late on your timeline for Supreme Court appointment battles: Reagan's Bork was shot down 42-58, GHWB's Thomas was confirmed 52-48, with both debates waged in the media.
In the times of 90-vote confirmations, horse-trading of variegated appointees just went on behind closed doors. Now that things are so fractured, a president can only get away with nominating a slate of judges all partially partisan in the same direction.
It wouldn't be the constitution being amended anyway, just Senate procedural rules, but Harry Reid is never going to go for that.
You're right that the current Congresses have been extraordinary in their dysfunction, but a little late on your timeline for Supreme Court appointment battles: Reagan's Bork was shot down 42-58, GHWB's Thomas was confirmed 52-48, with both debates waged in the media.
Obviously I'm aware of Bork and Thomas but they are irrelevant to my point. My point is that, in general, we usually confirmed justices by a large margin. That hasn't happened for 3 appointments in a row. 2 Exceptions in the last few decades doesn't make my point any less valid.
In the times of 90-vote confirmations, horse-trading of variegated appointees just went on behind closed doors. Now that things are so fractured, a president can only get away with nominating a slate of judges all partially partisan in the same direction.
The idea that a president has to nominate a partisan set of judges is not correct. All of GW's nomiations were conservative.
It wouldn't be the constitution being amended anyway, just Senate procedural rules, but Harry Reid is never going to go for that.
No, I meant what I said when I called it a constitution amendment. 3/5 to confirm a justice should be in the Constitution. The founders failed to foresee how politicized the Court would become.
Do you not know what partisan means? Yes, all of GWB's nominations were conservative partisans.
In the before time, it was common to give and take: GHWB did the centrist Souter along with batshitinsane Thomas, Reagan did the fairly centrist O'Connor and Kennedy along with the far-right genius Scalia.
Personally I think the Dems should exercise the nuclear option and amend the constitution to require 3/5 for appointments to the Supreme Court. They used to be confirmed by that much anyway; it's most been under GW Bush that we've had Court appointees pass by narrow margins. Cliton had over 90 votes for all of his and most of Reagan's were unanimous. GW never broke 60.