[ambrose]

HillaryCare would be the law of the land right now, if it weren't for the filibuster.

[RWR8189]

And we're not talking about eliminating filibusters all together...

[AaronInCarolina]

HillaryCare would be the law of the land right now, if it weren't for the filibuster.

My criticism is not necessarily aimed at the filibuster in general, it is the use of it in the context of judicial appointments. Filibusters have long been a standard practice in congress, but until the dems started doing it recently, it was not used to block judicial appointments.

If HillaryCare had not been blocked, it is almost a certainty that we wouldn't have to fear the spectre of her running for president ever.

[Congressman Billybob]

Stop confusing the issue. Ending the filibuster for judicial nominations will not, I repeat NOT, have anything to do with the use of the filibuster for ordinary legislation. The constitutional option (misdescribed as the "nuclear option") has been explained dozens of times here on FR.

Look up any of those explanations. Once you understand how it works, if Senator Frist has the balls and the votes to bring it up, you will realize that your point about Hillarycare is totally off point.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, "Death in a Courtly Manner"

[BigSkyFreeper]

HillaryCare didn't even see the light of day in Congress. Even the Democrats knew it was a bad deal, and many of them voted against it. Although, you can bet enough Democrats would vote for the piece of garbage, because the general makeup of the Democrat party has since shifted further to the left. Especially in light of their militant gay agenda and other acts of treason, treachery, sedition, and various other forms of kook, wacko, Liberal nonsense.

[CyberAnt]

But .. the filibuster is allowed for legislation - just not judicial nominees.

I don't want to get rid of the filibuster - I just want it to comply with the Constitution - not subvert it.