# Filibuster



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Is anyone else really bothered by this proposed block on filibusters? It seems to me that it is a right which should not be infringed upon. It is how we keep the country from undergoing radical change in a short amount of time, to the left or right.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 640D57.DTL


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I forget many of the laws, but the constitutions puts restrictions on what you can use filibusters for. If I remember the use of filibusters in this instance is unconstitutional. That does bother me. So you see it is not a right that is being infringed upon. If I am wrong on this lets hear it. From someone credible please.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Odd that you should have such a problem with something being unconstitutional in congress when you were in support of the unconstitutional action of having Therisa Schiavo's case heard, but I'll let that go. No, it isin't just for one action, they want to remove the filibuster nearly entirely. Do some reading on it. Someone credible? Sorry I couldn't get God nor Limbaugh to come.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Plainsman said:


> I forget many of the laws, but the constitutions puts restrictions on what you can use filibusters for. If I remember the use of filibusters in this instance is unconstitutional. That does bother me. So you see it is not a right that is being infringed upon. If I am wrong on this lets hear it. From someone credible please.


I think even though it is being called a filibuster it is not a real filibuster as they go. It really is the votes need to have cloture. The cloture vote is a Senate rule requiring 60 votes to stop a true filibuster or end debate. The rule for votes have been up and down, sometimes 50 and sometimes 60 required. I think it was last changed by the Republicans in 1997 to the present 60 votes. The majority party has always set this rule. Should the Democrats become the majority and the Republicans the minority do you think the Democrats would not change the rule ........... I hardly think so. Anyway the rule change should it be made would only affect judicial nominees and nothing else in the Senate.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Militant_Tiger said:


> Someone credible? Sorry I couldn't get God nor Limbaugh to come.


Aw shucks, either one would do. Gohon, Bobm, Seabass, Bigdaddy, many would also do. Thanks Gohon, I was rusty on that.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

I thought you were close to God Mt, you just praying to him a few days ago?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> The majority party has always set this rule. Should the Democrats become the majority and the Republicans the minority do you think the Democrats would not change the rule ........... I hardly think so. Anyway the rule change should it be made would only affect judicial nominees and nothing else in the Senate.


I know for fact that we wouldn't, we had power for 8 years and left it as it was. Thats the difference between liberals and conservatives you know, we keep the same rules for everyone and the conservatives have a standard for each occasion. They're in power, suddenly the filibuster goes. They are out of power, more power to states, they are in power, more power to the federal branch. How these constant flip flops do not discredit them but did Kerry, I will never know.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> I know for fact that we wouldn't, we had power for 8 years and left it as it was.


I see reading comprehension is still a major problem for you. The 60 vote rule was put in place in 1997 by the Republicans. It was suppose to be for normal business..... not judicial nominees. Prior to that it was 50 plus 1. Unless you have a mouse in your pocket, *WE* were not in power in 1997.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/T ... 42705.html

interesting take on this issue


----------

