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


1 posted on 04/09/2005 9:12:19 PM PDT by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 next last
To: blam

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.


2 posted on 04/09/2005 9:14:16 PM PDT by coconutt2000 (NO MORE PEACE FOR OIL!!! DOWN WITH TYRANTS, TERRORISTS, AND TIMIDCRATS!!!! (3-T's For World Peace))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blam

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.


3 posted on 04/09/2005 9:15:14 PM PDT by Phocion (Abolish the 16th Amendment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blam

I thought Bolton was confirmed


4 posted on 04/09/2005 9:16:19 PM PDT by woofie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blam; bd476
CRY ME A RIVER

5 posted on 04/09/2005 9:17:29 PM PDT by The Spirit Of Allegiance (ATTN. MARXIST RED MSM: I RESENT your "RED STATE" switcheroo using our ELECTORAL MAP as PROPAGANDA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blam
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.


7 posted on 04/09/2005 9:18:25 PM PDT by Viking2002 (Let's get the Insurrection started, already..............)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blam

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".


8 posted on 04/09/2005 9:19:46 PM PDT by Straight Vermonter (Liberalism: The irrational fear of self reliance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blam

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


9 posted on 04/09/2005 9:19:57 PM PDT by NEBUCHADNEZZAR1961
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blam

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.


10 posted on 04/09/2005 9:20:12 PM PDT by cryptical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blam

...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


11 posted on 04/09/2005 9:21:18 PM PDT by lawdude (Liberalism is a mental disease.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blam

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?


12 posted on 04/09/2005 9:21:41 PM PDT by whereasandsoforth (Stamp out liberals with the big boot of truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blam
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.

13 posted on 04/09/2005 9:32:02 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blam
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.

16 posted on 04/09/2005 9:32:54 PM PDT by El Gato (Activist Judges can twist the Constitution into anything they want ... or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blam

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.


17 posted on 04/09/2005 9:33:14 PM PDT by Amaury
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blam
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.
19 posted on 04/09/2005 9:37:41 PM PDT by beaver fever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blam


24 posted on 04/09/2005 9:46:58 PM PDT by SteveMcKing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blam

When was the 'moving' filibuster, invented?
By that, I mean the idea that any one item could
be stopped, but other business could continue?

If the Dems want to filibuster, make them
do it the old way, by talking, like in the movie
'Mister Smith goes to Washington'.


26 posted on 04/09/2005 9:47:36 PM PDT by greasepaint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blam

The MSM will not tolerate this. Even if Democrats do close down the Senate, the MSM will still present Republicans as angry, Evangelical, right-wingers who are "breaking tradition" and being "partisan."
Prepare for a major fight. Not just with Democrats, but with the MSM.


27 posted on 04/09/2005 9:49:42 PM PDT by mowkeka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blam

This is great news. The filibuster is a colossal waste of time and money.


33 posted on 04/09/2005 10:17:42 PM PDT by DennisR (Look around - there are countless observable clues that God exists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blam

What is it with these Brits - can't they get anything right ..??

The Republicans are not destroying the filibuster - they're just destroying the democrats' power.


38 posted on 04/09/2005 10:49:23 PM PDT by CyberAnt (President Bush: "America is the greatest nation on the face of the earth")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blam
"Under the rules filibusters must remain standing, cannot lean on the podium or take toilet breaks."

Mr.Sherwell is mis-informed.

The democRATs in the Senate are not doing any talking, they are just declaring that the nominations are "under filibuster" and then the Senate is going about other business.

If they applied the real rules of the filibuster, the vote would only be held up for as long as someone was up there talking.

The Senate president also could enforce that nobody leaves the chamber while the filibuster was in progress.

If they followed their own rule on filibusters, the problem would take care of itself, I guarantee you.

Could you imagine how drawn and ugly ol' Teddy Kennedy would look after a couple of days without sleep, having to remain in his seat while they filibustered?

39 posted on 04/09/2005 10:52:16 PM PDT by nightdriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 next last

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