Filibuster Busters
 

Anyone want to talk about what's going on in the Senate right now?

Opinions on the filibuster?

Should it stay or should it go now? (Say it to the tune of the Clash song...) :)

I believe it is a vital part of the senate process, a way to prevent the majority from running over the minority when the minority feels the majority may be completely wrong..... its one of the checks of the legislative and political process and a way to prevent a possibly corrupt majority(not meant to imply the current administration or anyone in power currently is corrupt) from railroading bad laws and bad decisions thru the process. And that is a good thing that should not be removed from the system.

"...if it goes there will be trouble, if it stays there will be double..."

sorry, got lost in the moment.

As a centrist, I'm all for the filibuster.

Come on and let me know. Should I stay or should I go?

I think it's a political move. If the Dems were the majority, the GOP would want it kept in place. I have a feeling that if the filibuster is voted away now, a GOP minority will want to bring it back in the future.

I love The Clash.

and odds are teh GOP would get little more then a big FU from the Dems

The majority always forgets they're only one election away from being the minority. Shortsighted fools.


GC, I love The Clash, too. My user title is from Rock The Casbah.




If I go there will be trouble...

Isn't fillibuster a funny word?



If I stay it will be double.

The filibuster is not going away. What is going away is the use of the practice to prevent up or down votes on nominations, not legislation. This is the first time that a filibuster has been used to prevent a nomination from coming to an up or down vote.

To quote a Federalist Paper, written by Thomas Jefferson -
"It will be the office of the President to nominate, and, with the advice
and consent of the Senate, to appoint. There will, of course, be no
exertion of choice on the part of the Senate. They may defeat one choice of
the Executive, and oblige him to make another; but they cannot themselves
choose, they can only ratify or reject the choice of the President."

It seems pretty clear that the intention of advise and consent is to ratify or reject. They are not to have a choice in whom is brought up for nomination. By refusing to bring up for a vote, they are in effect, making a choice in whom is brought up for confirmation - or rather who is not brought up for confirmation.

I am amused by all the "sanctity of the senate" crap being spewed forth. Harry Reid referred to this as "illegal". Huh? First of all, never has a filibuster been used to prevent confirmation votes, but the Constitution says it is up to the Senate to make their own rules. The dems have changed them in the past (in fact, I vaguely remember in the 70s there was a 67 vote majority required to break any filibuster. They reduced it to 60.