Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Republicans: We Will NOT Tolerate blocking Bush's Nominees, The End of Fillibusters?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Kuciwalker




    Filibustering is an abuse of parliamentary procedure to give the minority effective veto power over all legislation.
    It prevents Tyranny by Majority

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Odin


      Fillibustering keeps the majority from steamrolling the minority and so forces comprimise.
      However, we moved senator elections from the state legislature to direct, so we aren't in as credible a position to say that we don't have the Tyranny of the majority right now. Did the Democrats gain some state legislatures?

      Comment


      • #18
        It is attempting to change 225 year old laws which guard fairness and balance in judicial nominees. The 2/3 rule is so that any nominee must be supported by the vast majority of senators but the Republicans want to change that so they can ram through any body they want no matter how extreme.

        The Constitution says the senate is to advice the President on nominees and that all of the nominees must be approved by the senate. The 2/3 rule is a centuries old law which is designed to create more cooporation between parties and to assist in creating a group consensus.
        Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Odin
          It prevents Tyranny by Majority


          That's what the constitution is for. It's absolutely worthless to have Congress otherwise; we might as well have each party nominate a representative and when they agree on something, it happens. It's retarded to give anyone an effective veto.

          Comment


          • #20
            and that is a very legitimate position... the majority should be able to legislate their ideology.
            "Flutie was better than Kelly, Elway, Esiason and Cunningham." - Ben Kenobi
            "I have nothing against Wilson, but he's nowhere near the same calibre of QB as Flutie. Flutie threw for 5k+ yards in the CFL." -Ben Kenobi

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Oerdin
              It is attempting to change 225 year old laws which guard fairness and balance in judicial nominees. The 2/3 rule is so that any nominee must be supported by the vast majority of senators but the Republicans want to change that so they can ram through any body they want no matter how extreme.

              The Constitution says the senate is to advice the President on nominees and that all of the nominees must be approved by the senate. The 2/3 rule is a centuries old law which is designed to create more cooporation between parties and to assist in creating a group consensus.
              It is, however, a law, and it is the Senate prerogative to set its own rules. It even says so in the Constitution.

              The Republicans are not acting out of bounds at all. In fact, the Constitutionality of the 2/3 rule itself could be challenged.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Kuciwalker


                It is, however, a law, and it is the Senate prerogative to set its own rules. It even says so in the Constitution.

                The Republicans are not acting out of bounds at all. In fact, the Constitutionality of the 2/3 rule itself could be challenged.
                The problem is that they are changing it out of petty politics, not for a legitimate reason.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Kuciwalker
                  That's what the constitution is for. It's absolutely worthless to have Congress otherwise; we might as well have each party nominate a representative and when they agree on something, it happens. It's retarded to give anyone an effective veto.
                  It's not a veto in any way in any shape or in any form. You have to have 40% of the Senate all agree that something isn't good before you can have a filibuster. Do you know how hard it would be to maintain 40% of the senate on an issue? Do you realize how rare filibusters are because of this?
                  Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Odin
                    The problem is that they are changing it out of petty politics, not for a legitimate reason.
                    Does it matter, if there are legitimate reasons? (No)

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      when was the last time the GOP was pushing so many amendments (gay marriage, abortion, natural citizen presidents, etc.)? 1865?
                      "Flutie was better than Kelly, Elway, Esiason and Cunningham." - Ben Kenobi
                      "I have nothing against Wilson, but he's nowhere near the same calibre of QB as Flutie. Flutie threw for 5k+ yards in the CFL." -Ben Kenobi

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Oerdin
                        It's not a veto in any way in any shape or in any form. You have to have 40% of the Senate all agree that something isn't good before you can have a filibuster. Do you know how hard it would be to maintain 40% of the senate on an issue? Do you realize how rare filibusters are because of this?
                        If it's difficult to get 40%, it's much more difficult to get 60%.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          nm
                          12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
                          Stadtluft Macht Frei
                          Killing it is the new killing it
                          Ultima Ratio Regum

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            I'm not defending Republicans. I think the rule never should've been there.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by GePap
                              Well, can't the democrats fillibuser that proposal?
                              No. It only takes a simple majority to change house rules and the President of the Senate (Dick Cheney) can change the rules at a whim. The reason they don't want to do this is that it will allow the Democrats to do it once they return to a majority within the Senate, and payback could be a *****.
                              Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by chegitz guevara

                                payback could be a *****.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X