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

I can't think of any good that has come from the filibuster. Frist should have eliminated it entirely, when they did the rules at the start of the session. Now, he can get rid of it for presidential appointments, but he will be stuck with it for legislation, and the President's agenda will be stuck in the Senate.
1 posted on 03/07/2005 8:09:37 AM PST by Defiant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Defiant
Frist is useless.
2 posted on 03/07/2005 8:14:09 AM PST by IrishGOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Defiant

The filibuster makes a mockery of the Constitution. Minority parties (whether Democrat or Republican) always claim that it's a "time honored tradition," yadda, yadda, yadda, but deep down even those guys know it's a scam.

And I mean in general, not just for judicial appointments.


3 posted on 03/07/2005 8:28:33 AM PST by Phocion (Abolish the 16th Amendment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Defiant

I wonder when Congress will realize they are working for us? The CRATS are so busy stopping anything from being done they forgot us, and the Republicans are just wimps. Frisk has got to go!


4 posted on 03/07/2005 8:37:59 AM PST by Logical me (Oh, well!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Defiant

The filibuster (as we know it, requiring active prolonged speaking; not Reed's "I'm not here" kind) does serve a purpose, permitting an adamant minority a voice in the face of a complacent majority. Too often votes for a bill are obtained by ignorance, haste, bargaining, bias, etc. - and not by actual understanding of what a bill does and its impact; a filibuster permits the minority to be heard and make such a ruckus that passage, while still possible, requires more effort than a largely disinterested majority may be willing to expend.

The key to a proper filibuster is: once it starts, there is no break until it STOPS. The objecting minority must continue non-stop, around the clock, no weekends, with no additional business being addressed, until the objecting parties simply cannot go on. This requires a real commitment from the filibustering side, a passionate belief that consuming all that time and effort, at significant personal and procedural cost, is in fact worth it. Example: Alphonse D'Amato single-handedly held up proceedings for a couple days by talking continuously (singing, reading the phone book, ...) but got his point across to a legislature that otherwise would have generally ignored his concern.

The current flaw in the filibuster is that a "stop-and-go" option has been added: business continues pretty much as usual, with the legislative body returning to the issue periodically. Hence, judicial appointments have been held up by a minority that keeps saying "let's do some other things, then pick this up again tomorrow...or next week." That's not a true filibuster.

We need a return to the true filibuster. If the Dems want to hinder appointment of some judges, fine - they can take the podium and explain their concerns in great length ... and nothing else gets done until they give up. If they want to stop judicial appointments, they can ... but at the cost of not having time to pass other Dem-desireable legislation.


6 posted on 03/07/2005 8:49:12 AM PST by ctdonath2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Defiant
"Now, he can get rid of it for presidential appointments, but he will be stuck with it for legislation, and the President's agenda will be stuck in the Senate."

But only until the next session of Congress. If the Republicans can pick up one or two more votes and perhaps switch some current RINOS for conservatives, the chance could be even better to get it changed.

7 posted on 03/07/2005 8:54:41 AM PST by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Defiant
What a fine piece of work. Highest compliments to the writer. I've long believed that reaching into our history and finding an example that is almost identical to a situation faced today, is the best way to win a debate.

Although I had heard of "Czar" Reed in the dim recesses of an American history course many decades ago, I had never heard the details of this particular story. I think that hundreds of copies of this article should be forwarded to Majority Leader Frist.

And if Frist backs away from the fight and doesn't make the effort, then the entire text of this article should be tattooed on his sorry *ss, IMHO.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, "Death in a Courtly Manner"

8 posted on 03/07/2005 8:55:52 AM PST by Congressman Billybob (Proud to be a FORMER member of the Bar of the US Supreme Court since July, 2004.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Defiant

"Does Sen. Bill Frist?"

No more than Tent "the cheerleader" Lott.


10 posted on 03/07/2005 9:11:02 AM PST by Bar-Face
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Defiant
"The Chair is making a statement of fact that the gentleman is present. Does he deny it?" Reed then resumed reading his list of names.


11 posted on 03/07/2005 9:34:05 AM PST by Paleo Conservative (Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Andrew Heyward's got to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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