Kay Bailey Hutchison: “when the Founding Fathers wrote our Constitution, they said that judicial nominees would be confirmed by the advice and…”

“when the Founding Fathers wrote our Constitution, they said that judicial nominees would be confirmed by the advice and consent of the Senate. Clearly that has always been a majority vote. They specified in the Constitution when a larger vote was necessary, such as treaties, which require two-thirds. In fact, when the 25th amendment to the Constitution was approved by the Senate in 1965, the Vice President of the United States, if appointed, would be required to receive a majority vote of the House and Senate for confirmation. So to say that a judge should require a supermajority is to amend the Constitution without going through the process. That is what is happening today with Miguel Estrada. We are being required to muster 60 votes. We know we have 55 because we have had a vote now. We have had a cloture vote, and 55 people in the Senate believe Miguel Estrada should be confirmed for the Federal bench. And yet he is not confirmed because we have a higher threshold. We can't amend the Constitution through a filibuster. We cannot take away the power of the President's appointments that are given in the Constitution with a filibuster. This is different from any other filibuster. A filibuster on an issue is a legitimate tool. But a filibuster on a judicial nominee takes the balance of power and skews it in favor of the legislature over the President's right to have his people appointed to the Federal bench.”