If they did a real, old school filibuster, it would be OK.
Now it is just a road block.
F all of that. Why do “republicans” insist by playing by other people’s rules. Wait till the muzzies take over!
Without honest debate there can be no real or meaningful discussion. Until we return to civility and honest debate about what is good for America and her people, I feel that the Republic is lost.
I disagree. What they need to do, but probably won’t is to get rid of it for good to include Legislation. If the republicans muck it up while they are in the majority then they deserve to be back in the Minority. All they have to do is to use their Majority to pass legislation that improves the Economy, National Security and promote jobs and lower taxes. If they do this using their Majority without the 60 vote rule, the Democrats will be a Minority party for the next decade plus.
Somebody call a Waaaahmbulance.
[End of Filibuster Not Good for Either Party]
It is good for the U.S. Constitution.
Bullcrap. It was time for it to go.
Make them accountable with a vote on every subject.
Judgment will rest with the voters at the next election.
Make the voters accountable as they won’t be able to
vote for whackjobs secure in the knowledge that
filibusters will stop their most destructive ideas.
Things are now more transparent, accountable and honest.
Filibustering just allowed Senators AND Voters to have their cake and eat it too.
I’m sorry. This is such horse puckey from this author. The political filibuster was manufactured and used for the *1st* time in 2003 BY the RATS to block Bush lower court appointees (IIRC).
And, has been used by the RATS since.
What we are seeing is a return to the Constitution. At NO place in the Constitution does it require a Super majority to confirm judicial appointments. NOWHERE. Completely manufactured. Clarence Thomas 52-48; Alito 58-42; etc...
We did pretty well without it for 200+ years.
End of Filibuster Not Good for Either Party
________________________________________________________
John McCain agrees and will consequently vote FOR it.
The Senate didn't get rid of the filibuster. They got rid of the filibuster for the Supreme Court - a "tradition" put in place by Hairy Reid in 2003 to block Bush's judges and running directly against the "advice and consent" role given the Senate in the Constitution.
Linda Chavez needs to go back and take a class on the Constitution - if she can find one worth a dime left in this country except at Hillsdale College.
I don’t care if it’s good for either party. Ending the filibuster is good for America. Now let’s kill Obamacare!
The filibuster was created by the Democrats in 1917 and the founders argued against parliamentary type of deliberations...
This from the woman who wants amnesty for her illegal alien maids.
In my memory (since Ike) the fillibuster was mostly used by the dims and mostly to prevent integration and equal rights type legislation.
The senate rules did not include the “filibuster” at all until 1917, and the Supreme Court nominee “advise and consent” process was not subject to the 60 vote clouture rule on debate (filibuster) until 2003.
Ergo: this ain’t nothing.
It is also necessary to overcome the practical reality of a Republican party peopled by milquetoast RIno establishment types. Democrats one admirable trait is that they follow the program set forth by their leadership in lockstep. There are no moderates nor conservatives, just Democrats. Republicans are so scared of bad press and their own shadows that they can be frightened away from doing something that is reasonable and necessary. A Democrat filibuster signals to the weak sisters that this is something important and maybe they should side with the Democrats on this one, to keep their credentials as being "reasonable" and not partisan. A cloture vote gives them cover. Hogway. If it just comes to a simple vote, they will have to choose, and they know they cannot run as a Republican and vote against key Republican legislative matters and appointments.
I hate the filibuster. It has historically only been successfully used by Democrats advancing a racist or fascist agenda.
The Reid Option works for me. Democrats would use it if the shoe was on the other foot - they created it after all...
The Senate filibuster rule might have made sense at one time in our history, but I would suggest that it all started to come apart when the 17th Amendment required all states to hold direct elections for their U.S. Senators in place of whatever processes they had previously (direct elections, selection by governor, appointment by state legislature, etc.).