Frist's alma mater stages a filibuster against him!

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's an undemocratic mechanism that prevents the majority from riding roughshod over the minority. Simply because it has been used badly doesn't mean we should junk it. Voters decided to keep slavery, does that mean we should outlaw voting?

It is something which has allowed the Senate to become a far more polite house than the House.

I'll fight any attempt, by any party to end it.

[Shi Huangdi]

"It's an undemocratic mechanism that prevents the majority from riding roughshod over the minority. Simply because it has been used badly doesn't mean we should junk it. Voters decided to keep slavery, does that mean we should outlaw voting?"

Voting is something essential to a democracy. A filibuster is not only unessential to a democracy, it is actually an impediment. It's not right that a minority party has the right to veto anything it wants to merely by having 41 votes in the Senate.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
You know, if the Dems would be upfront about this and say that want to keep the filibuster so they can stop pro-life justices from getting in, that would be one thing.

Considering most of the rest of the judges approved have been anti-Choice, I don't see how this is relevent. Have you seen the records of the people they are blocking? They are as far out of touch with reailty as Ned pretends to be. The Justice from Texas actually said that the Texas legislature didn't mean for a law to say what it clearly said and ruled completely the opposite of the law's intent. They shouldn't be state judges, let alone Federal judges, where they can do some real damage. These people are scary.

[Admiral]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Bipartisan my butt. If the Democrats were in power and they were going to kill the filibuster to get in "pro-civil rights, pro-gender equality pro-environment" judges that the GOP was blocking, you can bet there would be no such thing happening.

So tell me, if this is solely a Democratic effort, why is public opinion so heavily on the side of the Democrats? Is is media bias? Do tell.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
"It's an undemocratic mechanism that prevents the majority from riding roughshod over the minority. Simply because it has been used badly doesn't mean we should junk it. Voters decided to keep slavery, does that mean we should outlaw voting?"

Voting is something essential to a democracy. A filibuster is not only unessential to a democracy, it is actually an impediment. It's not right that a minority party has the right to veto anything it wants to merely by having 41 votes in the Senate.

A filibuster is essential to the traditions and workings of the Senate. It prevents rule of the mob. If you had forgotten, the founders purposely did not want a democracy.

[MrFun]

Tyranny of the majority can be just as bad as tyranny of a minority.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Furthermore, color me unimpressed by 'this is more democratic' arguments. The Senate is an undemocratic body! And I'm not complaining, I actually want to make it more undemocratic (elect direct from state legislatures)!

[MrFun]

Why do you think that elections directly from state legislators would be a good idea?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Because it would focus Senators more on state interests, for one, and secondly it would make state legislatures more important and people may actually take them seriously. Furthermore, I believe the second branch should be more of a Republic type body, while the House is the more Democracy type body (I wouldn't have much objection to having the House go to Proportion Representation for instance, as long as it keeps its role as 1/2 of the legislature).

[MrFun]

interesting . . . . . . . .

[Vesayen]

You seem to be forgetting that North East Republicans are not neccesarily the same as the money hungry, corporation prostitizing regressive whores that the republican party represents in the rest of the coutnry.

The govenor of New York is a republican and has had... what term is he up to, 5, 6? I'm ravenously anti republican and I love him.... to Pataki.

Is it possibly, just MAYBE possible that they are telling the truth about the motives for their demonstration, or are you too cynical to yield that?

[Shi Huangdi]

"A filibuster is essential to the traditions and workings of the Senate. "

Something being traditional doesn't neccesarily mean it would be right. Especially when the major historical role of the tradition is support racism.

"It prevents rule of the mob. If you had forgotten, the founders purposely did not want a democracy."

Rule of the mob!? Rule of the mob is prevented by the fact that we have representative democracy, that Senators are elected for 6 years, that any piece of legislation must be passed by two houses and approved by the president(Or approved by 2/3 of both houses). It's protected by the fact that we have a Constitution that limits what the majority can do and prevents it from opressing minorirites.

But the filibuster is not part of that constitution, because allowing a minority of 41 to excercize a veto is going way way too far in allowing the representatives that the people elected from passing laws.

"Tyranny of the majority can be just as bad as tyranny of a minority."

If you don't like what the majority is doing, then throw them out in the next election.

---

Anyway, let me ask you guys who are so supportive of the filibuster the point I made earlier. Say it is 1964 and LBJ is trying to pass the Civil Rights Act. Southern support behind the filibuster of it remains solid in spite of fervent lobbying from LBJ, and a number of Western Senators support the Filibuster as well as they had done before on Civil Rights Bills because they feared if the Filibuster was allowed to be broken, they might get run over and not have the Filibuster open to them when they want to use. Opponents of the Civil Rights bill has managed. Using some parliamentary procedure, supporters of the Civil Rights Bill produce a way by which the filibuster could be abolished.

In this case, would you still support the filibuster, even if it's continued existence would mean the continuation of Jim Crow?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi


"Tyranny of the majority can be just as bad as tyranny of a minority."

If you don't like what the majority is doing, then throw them out in the next election.

So then in the meantime, we're suppose to happily submit to whatever unfair, unjust legislation the tyrannical majority passes and suffer during that time?

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Because it would focus Senators more on state interests, for one, and secondly it would make state legislatures more important and people may actually take them seriously. Furthermore, I believe the second branch should be more of a Republic type body, while the House is the more Democracy type body (I wouldn't have much objection to having the House go to Proportion Representation for instance, as long as it keeps its role as 1/2 of the legislature).

Intersetingly enough, the whole notion of State elected vs. people elected has gotten turned around. Because of gerrymandering, States have a huge say in determining the makeup of the Congressional delegation, whereas Senators have no such obstacle.

[Ramo]

Say the situations ar eme erversed, wo9uld you support JIm Crolw?

The filibuster supldrsts the parliamnatary minory. ino this case it's the democrats. bnow. reason it does is tha republican styates are over-represented int the senate. that[s whjuy. so quiit y9ur4 b itichitgn. it's ****iung pathetic. in shte Sneate, the majoritgy6 someteimes intrinsically loses/ th'at's wqhy the Disstircict foi Columbia aint' reprkesented int the Senawte. So.. Quite your bitichin.. it's your fault. y9our hate civil rights. you hate civilvl libert8ies. it's your fault. **** you.