pudge's Journal: Letter: There Is No Supermajority Requirement

Dear Editor,

I've seen letters recently, such as in your paper this week ("Fallout will be extensive"), that claim there is a "requirement for a supermajority to approve federal judges." But no such requirement has ever existed.

Clarence Thomas, for example, was approved by a mere majority, 52-48. Various Clinton nominees -- including Richard Paez, who was unsuccessfully filibustered by the Republicans -- were also passed by a regular majority, not a supermajority (which also means that some people who voted to end the filibuster also voted against the nominee).

Highlighting this mythical "200-year-old requirement" in fact argues against tradition, because not until recently, under Bush, has a judicial nominee who had the votes to be confirmed ever been rejected because of a filibuster. Not until now has reaching a supermajority actually been required.

Phew

[nocomment]

I had to cross my fingers and hope that you weren't talking about my paper. http://kcjn.com/ [kcjn.com] :-)

but but... and if....

[JDizzy]

In the past nominations would be confirmed by commitee for judicial appointments, and seemingly that process has broken down so that the determination is forced before the full senate. That is why there is the notions of having majority.

Re:but but... and if....

[pudge]

How has that process been broken down? The judicial committee is still approving of the candidates and sending them to the full Senate, just like always.