Is it fair to filibuster/reject a judicial nominee because his/her views may not exactly match your own?

Fair is a strange word. Few things in life are fair. However, I would suggest that filibustering is the equivalent to a child crying when they do not get their own way.

The reality is that the American people voted into congress those people who they feel best represent them. If through a straight vote those same representatives agree a judicial nominee is appropriate then democracy has spoken.

Filibustering is a petty and contemptuous effort to derail the democratic process.

It is legal and was built into our system of government to make sure that the minority view could be heard.

When you have a nation so clearly divided, but by such a narrow margin, it is important for represented government to follow the wishes of the entire populace. In most cases, elected offcials tow the party line and cater to those that supported them financially and often overlook the little guy holding the country together back at home.

In this case, we have a judicial nominee that is decidly conservative/ergo sides with Republicans. Yet 45 to 49% of the nation is democratic/more liberal. So, true fairness would be a nominee that is more centerist and caters to the middle rather than the left or right.

But since one side has a controlling power, and since judicial nominees are for life, they have POWER to control the future of government for years to come. It is also important to note this would fundamentally change the balance of the Supreme Court as well. Rather than being most split with conservayives and liberals with a few moderates, the new makeup would lean more conservative, thus severely alienating nearly have the poulace.

So in this case, to be heard, using a fillibuster is not only a part of governmental history it is used to ensure fairness for all.

The real question should be Is it fair to the general population to have so many politicians not listening to the people and paying too much attention to special inetrest groups?

As to qualifications. All candidates for the bench should be qualified. Of course, that should be qualified. In my opinion, to be a judge, you need to know the law. Knowing the law also means you have to have some real world experience. So, I would say you should have at least attended law school and been in some capacity an arbitrator or attorney or judge to be considred. Many great business managers and statesmen have become judges, and I feel this leaves ambiguity in how the Constitution can be interpreted. I think it does take someone who has been qualified and certified to know the legal system in great detail.

Filibuster is a right for any US Senator. It was designed to protect the minority party of the US Senate. A nominee should represent all people and not just he majority party. If the nominees meets that criteria, there usually is quick and easy confirmation. Chief Justice Roberts was approved with no major issues because he did not show any bias in his work history. The US Senators just want someone to represent everyone and make judicial decision on the merits of the case.

Of course it's fair. That's the way the system's rules are written. To successfully filibuster a bill or nominee a party has to have 41 votes, which is a substantial minority. The rules of the Senate are designed to allow a determined enough minority to protect their interests from a 51-50 situation. Whichever party is in power usually strongly rails against filibusters, but the filibuster rule has remained in place because everyone knows that sooner or later their party will be in the minority.

I would also add that it's especially important to protect minority parties' rights when the issues surround lifetime appointments to positions of power.

No two people are ever going to have views that exactly match. With that in mind, I think each senator needs to decide if it's worth a filibuster. If the senator thinks the nominee's views are extreme enough, then he should filibuster it. I would say this should only be used in special circumstances, however.

filibuster is unconstitutional.. the constitution says that congress is to decide on an issue or nominee and vote yes or no..

filibustering is a stall tactic.. basically the person or persons doing it will blather on and on in order to keep congress from voting on the issue or nominee.. which as i stated is what the constitution says congress is supposed to do..

the person who said something about minorites in this post is an idiot.. do you know when the first filibuster was used?.. it was used by southern democrats during and after the civil war to delay voting on rights for african americans..

It is fair if the judicial nominee refuses to answer the questions directly as in the case of John Edwards and not Alito.

It depends upon what views differ from yours and how far those views differ from the rest of the country.

If he is qualified but he expresses opinions like "A little snort of cocaine first thing in the morning never hurt anybody" or "Slavery wasn't really all that bad", then yes it's OK to vote against him, even if he is the most qualified judge in the country.

yes, that is the american way. It like a job interview, the people interviewing u want to know what kind of person u are because u are not leaving for a long time. We vote people n 2 office to carried our best interest. the people that bush nominated to the supreme court do not carried our best interest at hand. To me supreme court justices should be on the bench for 20 years, that way u can get should ideas on the court. i think there are more judges that is more qualified and not conservate like bush, who can do the job good