Filibuster to be Challenged in Court

That's really convenient to bring up now that the dems have won reelection, do u think they would be pushing this if the parties present positions were reversed? Do you think the minority party should just let the opposition run rampant with their (in this case RADICAL) agenda?

Also, the case the article's about is ridiculous, i stopped at 'andiola isn't an American citizen' lol.. who gives a FUCK about her ILLEGAL ass. She came here illegally and we are supposed to have sympathy for her because her scholarship was taken, are you serious??

If you have a problem with filibustering, do u also have a problem with the fed govt NOT enforcing existing laws, NOT conforming to the Constitution, and opposing state governments (like AZ) that attempt to enforce said laws already on the books?
 
Quote from PiggyBank:

That's really convenient to bring up now that the dems have won reelection, do u think they would be pushing this if the parties present positions were reversed? Do you think the minority party should just let the opposition run rampant with their (in this case RADICAL) agenda?

Also, the case the article's about is ridiculous, i stopped at 'andiola isn't an American citizen' lol.. who gives a FUCK about her ILLEGAL ass. She came here illegally and we are supposed to have sympathy for her because her scholarship was taken, are you serious??

If you have a problem with filibustering, do u also have a problem with the fed govt NOT enforcing existing laws, NOT conforming to the Constitution, and opposing state governments (like AZ) that attempt to enforce said laws already on the books?
More...

Well said.

In a 2 party system, Slow government change is better than fast government change in every single instance. The founders designed it this way for a reason. Imagine how much more radical Obamas agenda would have been if he only needed 51 votes?

Fast government change tends to come about from regime change, through much death and destruction, only a commie would cheer for that.
 
interesting opinions. It might be a good idea to look and see exactly what kings of changes in the filibuster rule are being considered.
 
Under the rules of the last Congress, senators could speak on any topic as long as they liked unless stopped by a vote of 3/5ths of the senators currently serving. That would normally be 60 senators.

However in 1892 the Supreme Court was asked to rule on the question of whether senate rules automatically carried over from one session to the next. The court ruled that they do not, and therefore on the first day of the Senate session a simple majority of one vote is all that is required to adopt a new rule!

I think it is too late in the current session for the option of changing the rule on filibuster cloture by simple majority vote to be used. Nevertheless, this would have been a way around the obstruction of senate business by a tiny minority of senators, often just one senator. As a matter of fact, the rules for cloture on a filibuster have been changed several times in the past.

Under the rules of the last session, it would take a 2/3rds majority vote to end a filibuster of a rule change once the rules are established for the session, and that is even less likely than achieving the normal 3/5ths majority needed for cloture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top