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

[Imran Siddiqui]

Because it is INGRAINED as a part of parliamentary procedure. It's like saying tabling a bill is an abuse of parliamentary procedure even though it's been a parliamentary procedure rule for a long time. It doesn't make any sense to say a parliamentary procedure is an abuse of parliamentary procedure.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
We should have PR in the House. The Senate is undemocratic, yes, but at least it was intended to be precisely that way. How can you claim continuing to talk for hours on end solely so that a bill cannot come to a vote not abuse of parliamentary procedure?

I say it's not abuse, because it provides a method for a minority to check the power of the majority within the legislature.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


That really says some sad things about those other countries.

Yeah, they're really crying.

[Kuciwalker]

Did you ever read the Kucinich quote stefu had in his sig for a long time?

[PLATO]

A bipartisan group of moderate lawmakers Tuesday held the first post-election meeting of the "Centrist Coalition"

The beginning of a 3 party system???





On the issue: The 60 vote majority is a rule...not a law. The Senate sees fit to change rules often. Their is no Constitutional requirement for 60 votes to end a filabuster...in fact the constitution doesn't address the question of filabusters at all.

Presidential Judicial Nominee's need a vote. Up or Down. This was true in Clinton's time and it is true today.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by PLATO


The beginning of a 3 party system???





On the issue: The 60 vote majority is a rule...not a law. The Senate sees fit to change rules often. Their is no Constitutional requirement for 60 votes to end a filabuster...in fact the constitution doesn't address the question of filabusters at all.

Presidential Judicial Nominee's need a vote. Up or Down. This was true in Clinton's time and it is true today.

And it's only a coincidence that Republicans want to change the rule to fit the same number of seats that they happen to hold, huh?

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Do you realize how rare filibusters are because of this?

Very rare before 2001 in confirmation votes only two that I can find.

[DanS]

What's the source for this article, anyway?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
the republicans are also scheeming to allow the house majority leader to keep his job even if he is convicted of a crime. its on the news right now

The Republicans are rewritting their own ethics rules to make sure this guy stays in power. Originally even being accussed of commiting an act of corruption meant the speaker had to step down but now Republicans are sauing it's ok to have a crook represent them as long as his a partisan crook.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by PLATO

Presidential Judicial Nominee's need a vote. Up or Down. This was true in Clinton's time and it is true today.

Please explain why several of Clinton's judges were never voted on because Republican's filibustered. Geee, the hypocrates loved the filibuster then but they call it unfair when the tables are turned.

[Berzerker]

So wait, when the democrats throw every rule and technicality they can at preventing a vote, thats Democracy in action, but when the republicans force the senate to vote on nominees, thats totalitarian communism in action?

The problem is that they are changing it out of petty politics, not for a legitimate reason.

That's why they voted the rule in a decade ago.

Fillibustering keeps the majority from steamrolling the minority and so forces comprimise.

Strange observation from a champion of democracy.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Please explain why several of Clinton's judges were never voted on because Republican's filibustered. Geee, the hypocrates loved the filibuster then but they call it unfair when the tables are turned.

Please provide evidence to back that up. I can't recall a single one that was held up by filabuster...not one.

[Drake Tungsten]

And it's only a coincidence that Republicans want to change the rule to fit the same number of seats that they happen to hold, huh?

It's not a coincidence. It's not even true...

[Lefty Scaevola]

Retraction & apology:

I have found 2 cases of filibusters against Clinton nominees: one judicial and one to the FDIC.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The Republicans are rewritting their own ethics rules

To exacctly what the democrats rules (its the internal party caucus rules in each case) have been all along and still are. Did you ever complain over the past dozens years or so about the democ-rats having the lower standard in their rules than the repugs? I do not think so.