Some things in life are just hard to believe. This editorial from the LAT is one of them.
Well, that's the way it's supposed to work. The Senate will advise & consent on each nominee, then an up or down vote.
What's this super majority crap anyway?
Did hell freeze over in the bowels of the LA Slimes?
The filibuster (I mean real filibuster, with cots and 48 hour speeches and peeing into buckets)can be a useful tool for bringing out public outrage over a certain bill or policy, but when used in the past was only saved for issues of such importance since it required shutting down the Senate for a strech untill the issue was resolved. Currently it allows for a minority to run the Senate with no possibility of retribution.
Another sign that we have the votes?
It seems that the LA Times has a bigger agenda here!
As with Harry Reid "negotiating" on the issue by agreeing to let certain judges pass and replacing others, this editorial proves that liberals are not afraid of what conservative legislation and a conservative judiciary will net as a result, they are upset over what they won't get. Gay marriage, euthenasia, last minute abortions, every semblance of faith removed from daily life, etc.
The true “nuclear option” is the unprecedented Democrats use of filibusters to stop President Bush’s judicial nominees.
Let’s take the use of filibusters into the future. What will the Senate Republicans do the next time a Democrat sits in the White House? Will they politely pass whatever nominee the Democrat President sends them? No, as long as there is even one Republican in the Senate, they will now also filibuster any Democrat nominee.
Thus we will move from a nominally independent judiciary appointed to life terms to a highly political judiciary appointed only in recess appointments to get around the Senate.
This, because the Democrats would rather destroy the federal judiciary than give the Republicans a power that they rightfully earned at the ballot box.
About 1000 more editorials like this ad the LA Times might see an improvement in their circulation.
I read it all and agreed with it.
I understand that the House of Reps also practiced unrestricted debate in its early years, but got rid of it because the House continued to grow in size and it became counterproductive to permit unlimited debate. In other words, the concept of unlimited debate is not something that is written in stone.
It actually is a silly, untenable idea. At some point, the speaker has to decide what his points are are simply state them. If he cannot do that then he's not the right guy for the job.
There's not a lot of value in unending debate in my opinion. There eventually comes a time to act.
Vote it up or vote it down.
Wow!
Okay, which Freeper substituted the intended LA Times editorial at the printing press in favor of this fair and truthful account?
I am absolutely shocked.
The filibuster is a reactionary instrument that goes too far in empowering a minority of senators. It's no accident that most filibusters have hindered progressive crusades in Washington, be it on civil rights or campaign finance reform. California's Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, one of those recent converts to the filibuster, embarrassed herself by hailing Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) as her inspiration at a pro-filibuster rally. At least Byrd is being consistent in his support — he filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
---
LOL I didn't hear about this... What do the NYT and WP think about all this?
Damn. From the LA Times. I had to click through just to make sure this wasn't a satire piece.