Tweet
Originally posted by shawnmmcc
No - a filibuster is NOT a delaying tactic. A filibuster is a tactic used by a strong minority to exercise an de facto veto power over actions they consider not in the best interest of the American people - you and I may disagree with their interpretation, but that is the reason for it.
No - a filibuster is NOT a delaying tactic. A filibuster is a tactic used by a strong minority to exercise an de facto veto power over actions they consider not in the best interest of the American people - you and I may disagree with their interpretation, but that is the reason for it.
Filibuster -
In a legislature or other decision making body, a filibuster is an attempt to obstruct a particular decision from being taken by using up the time available, typically through an extremely long speech.
The term first came into use in the United States Senate, where senate rules permit a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose. The term comes from the early 17th century, where Buccaneers were known in England as filibusters. This term had evolved from the Spanish filibustero which had come from the French word flibustier, which again evolved from the Dutch vrybuiter (freebooter).
A similar form of parliamentary obstruction practiced in the United States and other countries is called "slow walking". It specifically refers to the extremely slow speed with which legislators walk to the podium to cast their ballots. For example, in South Korea this tactic is known as a "cow walk" . In general it refers to the intentional delay of the normal business of the legislature [1].
Secondly, the Constitution tasks the legislative chambers to come up with their own rules. Thus to claim that only when they vote are they exercising their constitutional responsibility is bogus. The parliamentary rules are critical, as the framers of the constitution understood, and you evidently do not.
Thirdly, the Senators were never ambassadors and that was never the intent. They were part of a legislative body. Say it again three time slowly. Legislative. The purpose of the Senate was to protect the minority, in this case seen as smaller states, from the unfettered will of the majority. That and the Bill of Rights were both critical parts of the system. At the time fear of the mob mentality - after the example in France - caused the framers of the Constitution to add in layers between the will of the people and direct election. It worked at the time, and made some sense after that horrendous example of mob rule had occured.
Even if it was the 1975 versus 1972 - I would have to research it, you misrepresent what I said. I said even for such a good cause as the Civil Rights laws (passed so murderers in the South could be brought to justice, in part) and anti-lynching laws, I found the precedent disturbing. D-I-S-T-U-R-B-I-N-G. We agree on that. Now, do you find the Republican attempt equally disturbing? And for substantially less cause.
What I find distrubing is that if the constitutional option would have been invoked and should have been invoked lo all those years past we could well have avoided or at least prosecuted to the full extent of the law such travesties as lynching. to continue to support the archaic and hopelessly broken system called the senate rules.
So if a simple up or down vote would have caused all of Clinton's nominees to be defeated, why didn't the Republicans give them the vote? Obviously because at least some of the nominees, perhaps most, could have passed on the floor. That they did not want because they were hoping to win the next Presidential election against Al Gore, who they rightly realized was a flawed candidate.
You don't respond to my point about the only way these rule changes can be stopped. For one party, upon taking the majority control, to get together with the minority to guarantee that, via Senate rulemaking, that these end-runs around parliamentary procedures do not continue to happen. Of course each party loves to play majority partisan games, so it won't happen. If you wish, no Missouri compromise in the near future.
Comment