Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: pabianice
In 2005, the Republicans wanted to change the rules and now they're against it.......LOL!

I can't call Reid a hypocrite without calling the repubs hypocrites too.......

So I'll just call him an untrustworthy lying a'hole

55 posted on 12/05/2012 12:40:08 PM PST by Hot Tabasco (Jab her with a harpoon.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Hot Tabasco

I still believe the filibuster should not apply to judicial nominees.

And the only reason I support, and in fact the only reason that there ARE republican judicial filibusters right now, is because they are fighting back on seats that should have been filled by Bush, but were blocked by filibuster.

This isn’t about judges. This is about legislation. Reid has made it impossible for the minority to file amendments to legislation, so his caucus never has to take a bad vote, or worse, actually give the republicans something because democrats would vote FOR it.

Because he has “filled the amendment tree”, the republicans have filibustered everything in sight. Normally, the filibuster was used for stopping extraordinary things. The democrats started using it as a rule for every bill, and now republicans are returning the favor.

If you look back in time, you’ll find that LOTS of things used to pass the senate with less than 60 votes, because a lot of people who opposed something didn’t feel it rose to the level of filibustering.

The Senate rules weren’t meant to require 60 votes to pass a bill. They were meant for reasonable men to decide that something needed a lot more discussion and consideration, in certain circumstances.

Frankly, the senate could, if they wanted, get rid of the filibuster. They have changed the rule before, and could change it again; the issue is whether the rule itself applies to the vote changing the rule.

And that in the end is a political question. The House clearly disbands every 2 years, and a new House takes its place. And nobody would argue that the new House is bound by the rules set up by the disbanded House.

But the Senate never “disbands” — the whole point of the Senate is that it serves continually, replacing only 1/3 of it’s members every 2 years. So the argument is that the rules exist in perpetuity.

That is what Reid is trying to change. And if he was pushing just to get rid of the filibuster for judicial nominations, I get he’d get a few republican votes.

They clearly believe that, if they can pass legislation in the Senate, that can use that legislation, with help from the media, to attack the house, win it back in 2014, and then be free to do whatever they want.


61 posted on 12/05/2012 1:16:47 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson