"Stuart Grey" wrote

If it wasn't for the fact that a minority of Democrats in the Senate
have found an (unconstitutional) way to block judges, I might agree.

Actually, it takes a majority of Democrats in the Senate to use a perfectly
Constitutional method (used in the past by Republicans) to insist that
unqualified partisan nominees not be rubber stamped into lifetime sinecures.

If it wasn't for the fact that some of these judges, the Democrats even
had a majority in the Senate, I might agree.

Unsure of what you just said.

The truth is, the Senate and the President determine who the judges will
be. Mostly the president, true, but he can't do it alone. He can't even
do it with less than 60 senators on his side.

And this is BAD and Unconstitutional?

I'd personally say, if the President cannot convicne 2/3 of the
Senate that a candidate is worthy, the candidate should be withdrawn.
That's what REAL statesmen would do. The idea that the highest court
in the land should be a partisan institution should chill NeoCon as well as
liberal, but NeoCons have a different agenda than leading this country -
they wish to RULE. It is a different concept than what I grew up with...

So deals are made. You aren't naive enough to not think that deals are
made, are you?

Stuey calling someone else naive? The irony. ; )

Seriously, where do you stand? First you decry the "unConstitutionality"
of needing 60 votes, then you seemingly backtrack.

Is it a good or bad policy to have bipartisan agreement on lifetime
appointments to the highest court in the land?

Dan