To the editor:

In recent days/weeks the Journal-World has printed several letters and a David Broder column supporting the Democrat position that using the procedural practice of the filibuster against the president’s judicial appointments is a right and proper disposition of the executive’s constitutional requirements to nominate candidates for the “advice and consent” of the U.S. Senate.

I invite your Journal-World readers to read Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. Nothing therein requires anything more than a majority vote of the Senate. I repeat: NOTHING in 214 years of our history has required 60 votes for judicial nominees … until the Daschle-led Senate of the most recent Congress sought to and did undo and rewrite our history of providing “advice and consent” to those who were voted affirmatively out of the Senate Judicial Committee. Thereafter, such committee-approved nominees are further debated on the floor of the U.S. Senate before conducting an up-or-down vote.

For four years the Democrat senators have trashed two centuries of tradition, i.e., no filibuster of judges.

What the Republicans are going to do is RESTORE Senate procedures that have been uniformly adopted and used by all political parties.

Oh yes, on May 5, our greatly honored Kansan, Bob Dole, came out unequivocally for ending the Democrat boycott.

Jim Winn,

Lawrence