Republicans Plan To End Cherished Political Tradition Of The Filibuster

The Telegraph (UK) ^ | 4-10-2005 | Philip Sherwell

[coconutt2000]

I love my country's version of Democracy.

A system of checks of balances that puts other nations to shame.

Now, do our reps have the guts to push for a show down? I sincerely hope so.

[Phocion]

I wish they did trash the whole (unconstitutional) filibuster, but I thought the plan was just to dump its use for judicial appointments. The "tradition" of filibustering those goes back 4 years.

[woofie]

I thought Bolton was confirmed

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

CRY ME A RIVER

[jwalburg]

That's what I thought, too. Nothing is stopping traditional "cherished" legislative filibusters, but the Dems know they can make the public think that's what's happening.

[Viking2002]

Liberals raped the filibuster like a Scottish farmer at the hindquarters of a Highland sheep. Time to copy an act that the libs love, and pull it's feeding tube.

[Straight Vermonter]

Correct me if I am wrong but I thought the idea was to eliminate filibustering ONLY on appointments? The aticle seems to imply that all filibustering will be eliminated.

BTW I am in favor of filibustering (not on appoinments) because it eliminates what John Stuart Mills called the "tyranny of the majority".

[NEBUCHADNEZZAR1961]

Good on our side! A lot of "traditions" need to be re-examined. Watch the libs cry and cry!

[cryptical]

I'd like to see them go back to the original filibuster. Hold the floor of the Senate personally, none of this wimpy "gentleman's agreement" hogwash.

Of course the Republican's don't have the stones to push it back to that level, because then when it's their turn for the fundraising letters to plead "help us get back in charge" they'd have to have some Senators with the fortitude to stand up.

[lawdude]

...the filibuster - a two-centuries-old Senate rule that in effect allows just 41 of the 100 members to obstruct legislation and nominations by talking as long as they can..."

And just how does this relate the what the f'head dems are doing by requiring 60 votes to stop a laugh called filibuster invoked by words only. They are NOT 'talking as long as they can'.

I would love to see "Sheets" Byrd get up and babble for the LAST three hours of his sickening life! May he rot in hell!

/vent

[whereasandsoforth]

I wonder if this writer is really as ignorant and uninformed as he seems to be or if he is increbibly biased? This is merry old England's paper, is it not?

[Lancey Howard]

The stakes, however, are expected to escalate because up to three of the nine Supreme Court justices are expected to be replaced during Mr Bush's second four-year term.

This is news to me. More likely, it's a gross exaggeration by the author.
Rehnquist is likely to be replaced and maybe O'Conner. So at best, we can replace a conservative and a moderate with two conservatives. But that still leaves 4 unabashed scumbags plus one wild card (Anthony Kennedy).

A meaningful return to respect for the Constitution and the rule of law will only begin when a scumbag gets replaced by a conservative. And I have a funny feeling that the scumbags will not leave the Court until there's a scumbag President to appoint their replacements.

[Lancey Howard]

The Telegraph is actually the "conservative" British daily.

[EagleUSA]

The fillibuster has become a tool of tyranny, a tool to obstruct a functional, representative government -- let it be gone. But I would not bet my life on the Repubs making it happen.

While the left continues to destroy this country through the use and placement of their minions (judicial mainly) to operate outside the law and assigned duty, the Repubs are STILL JUST TALKING!!!

[El Gato]

The showdown over the filibuster - a two-centuries-old Senate rule that in effect allows just 41 of the 100 members to obstruct legislation and nominations by talking for as long as they can

They no longer have to actually talk, they just have to threaten to do so. The House once had such a filibuster rule, it was eliminated after less than a single century as being too condusive to obstructionism.

Futhermore, as I understand it, the Senate would only eliminate the filibuster when performing their duty to advise and consent on Presidential appointments, perhaps only on those to the Judiciary. Filibusters would still be possible on legislation.

[Amaury]

This is insane!

We cannot, simply cannot terminate filibusters. I understand they are bad for our side these days as Democrats are likely to use them to block Republican legislation.

Nevertheless, we must keep in mind that Congress whether it is controlled by Republicans or Democrats, remains a part of government. Government cannot be trusted and our democratic system is meant to be slow and often inefficient.

Furthermore, what will happen if Democrats take back control of the Senate either next year or in '08?

It seems our Republican elected officials have become drunk with power.

[Lancey Howard]

BUMP for excellence in posting!
Yes, the plan is to stop only filibusters of judicial nominees, not legislation.

[beaver fever]

All this is quite amusing coming from the Telegraph. In the British Parliamentary system the majority party can invoke closure to limit debate on any bill and does so frequently.

Ditto Canada. I've seen closure instituted many times over the years. The opposition feigns indignation for a few days to gain headlines and then goes on with further business, knowing full well they can invoke closure when it's their turn at bat.

As for my opinion this filibuster controversy is more like fili-bluster.

[Dad yer funny]

ping for the a.m.