Frist's alma mater stages a filibuster against him!

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by MrFun



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?

If it's that tyrannical, it can be thrown out as Unconstitutional.

What is unfair and unjust, however, is in the eye of the beholder. Any party could find anything unjust. There are many people in this country who would consider it unfair and unjust to promote Gay Rights in anyway. We have the Constitution to protect our basic rights, and we have the fact that it takes winning both houses of Congress and the Presidency for one party to get something through, something which is rather difficult. But beyond that, it is the popularly elected representatives which decide which is the most fair and just legislation.

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by 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.

This is the best post Ramo has ever made!

[Imran Siddiqui]

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

And because the tradition has been perverted on certain doesn't mean it should be junked.. or do you think the Catholic Church should be thrown on the pyre because of the scandels engulfing it?

This tradition is right.

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.

The filibuster has been a long standing block on democratic power in the Senate. That is why it is limited to the Senate, the less democratic body. We could go back to the way it was, in that there was NO way to end debate in the Senate. On in 1917 was there a way to end a filibuster.

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

Yes.

[Shi Huangdi]

"And because the tradition has been perverted on certain doesn't mean it should be junked.. or do you think the Catholic Church should be thrown on the pyre because of the scandels engulfing it?

This tradition is right."

Well, you can justify something based on it's present value. But if you want to justify something based on it's traditional worth you consider what the tradition has accomplished vs. problems it has caused. I don't know what great merits the filibuster has accomplished that would overcome it's use to support segregation.

"
The filibuster has been a long standing block on democratic power in the Senate. That is why it is limited to the Senate, the less democratic body. We could go back to the way it was, in that there was NO way to end debate in the Senate. On in 1917 was there a way to end a filibuster."

Well there you go. We broke with tradition before, and we can do so again.

"Yes."

Well alright then. I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I don't know what great merits the filibuster has accomplished that would overcome it's use to support segregation.

The filibuster is one of the main things which makes the Senate a more collegial body, which looks at bills that reach a broader consensus rather than just barely pass. The House is the kids table where they scream and yell and barely pass stuff. The Senate is the adults table where they talk it out amicably and come to a decision that forms a greater number.

The filibuster is integral to keep that Senatorial civility and having that branch act like adults.

Well there you go. We broke with tradition before, and we can do so again.

You can't see the difference between an evolution and a total reversal?

[Ramo]

shi if you think otthe filibuster's unfair, why not give barbera boxer several tiems as many votes as craig thomas (whoever, the **** he is, i never hear do of him, but he's a free rethug wyoming senator)?

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by Ramo
shi if you think otthe filibuster's unfair, why not give barbera boxer several tiems as many votes as craig thomas (whoever, the **** he is, i never hear do of him, but he's a free rethug wyoming senator)?

What I would support is you going and getting some rest before your final tommorow.

[civman2000]

"Godel's Incompleteness Theorem"

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MrFun
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?

Why are people talking about legislative filibusters as if that is what Frist has in his cross hairs? Why is Ramo so drunk during his exams? The questions just keep coming.

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Why are people talking about legislative filibusters as if that is what Frist has in his cross hairs? Why is Ramo so drunk during his exams? The questions just keep coming.

Right, the filibuster only applies to appointing justices. Although I think it would be a very good thing to just scarp the filibuster altogether.

[Drake Tungsten]

For the last two weeks, students, faculty and congressmen have kept the filibuster going around the clock, reading everything from Einstein's classic papers to the "Q" section of Webster's Collegiate Dictionary.

They're showing support for the practice of speaking for long periods to block pending legislation. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a 1974 Princeton graduate, has threatened to use the "nuclear option," reducing the number of votes needed to stop a filibuster if Democrats use the tactic to try to block some of President Bush's judicial nominees.

I wonder if these people at Princeton are so ignorant that they actually believe filibusters still involve "speaking for long periods to block pending legislation" or if CNN is just being sloppy...

[chequita guevara]

They're probably trying to make a point, DT.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
They're probably trying to make a point, DT.

Why is Ramo drunk during exams then?

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Although I think it would be a very good thing to just scarp the filibuster altogether.

That puts you in good Democratic company.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Why is Ramo drunk during exams then?

That's a damn good question. Stress? Maybe he was having a stroke?

[Drake Tungsten]

They're probably trying to make a point, DT.

I know they're trying to make a point. I'm just saying that, if CNN's assessment of their motives is correct, the point they are making is stupid and decades out of date.