On the recordNovember 12, 2013
back in 2005, before some of the current membership of the Senate was even here, we had a very important development when it came to judicial nominations and the advice-and- consent function of the Senate. Never, before the Presidency of George W. Bush, had nominees to the Federal court been filibustered; that is, a 60-vote threshold been imposed as opposed to a 51-vote threshold, which is, of course, what the Constitution says--requiring a majority of the Senate. But there was an impasse. A number of judges at the circuit court level and district court level were locked down in this impasse. But, as so often happens around the Senate, a gang broke out. A gang was created. Seven Republicans and seven Democrats got together and helped us work through this impasse, and they did so by adopting a new Senate precedent which says, in essence, there will be no filibusters of Federal judges absent ``extraordinary circumstances.'' Yes, you may say that is a broad standard, and it is somewhat subjective, admittedly so, but the point was that the default position would be that Federal judges would get up-or-down votes and there would not be the resort to the 60-vote threshold absent extraordinary circumstances.…
Source
govinfo.gov




