And this is a bad thing because???
Anyway, it is the Rats who have invited all-out warfare. This is akin to saying the Brits invited WWII when they finally had enough, and declared war on Germany after it invaded Poland!
FWIW, I don't support the "nuclear option"... I'd much prefer that the Senators get off their lazy ass, and end this practice of a Gentleman's Filibuster. Roll out the cots and make the Rats debate 24/7. They WILL crack, just like the Rats that fled Texas during redistricting.
I agree - force their hand on a real fillibuster and let them look stupid.
Go "Nuclear" or bring back a real filibuster. Either way I don't care so long as this senseless obstruction by the Dems is brought to a halt.
"Roll out the cots and make the Rats debate 24/7."
I second that!
"I'd much prefer that the Senators get off their lazy ass, and end this practice of a Gentleman's Filibuster. Roll out the cots and make the Rats debate 24/7."
Agreed, or what's a filibuster for?
No they won't. The way filibustering works, the Rats would only have to keep one or two Senators around at any given moment, while the GOP would have to keep at least 50 Senators in the chamber at all times, 24/7.
More importantly, though, filibustering was never meant to be used on issues like judicial nominees. The tactic exists to force compromise on pending legislation, but there is no compromise to be had on judicial nominees; you can either approve them or not, those are the only choices. Once the Rats started using filibustering to block judicial nominees, they stepped well outside the lines of the "Gentlemens' Rules." The so-called "nuclear option" should be used by the GOP the moment any Democrat attempts to block a judicial nominee via a filibuster.
Exactly..
Hmmmmm?? You're against the "nuclear option" but you want them to "end the practice of filabusters" ..??
But .. the "nuclear option" is the only THING WHICH WILL END THE FILABUSTERS.
A SENATE RULE DOES NOT TRUMP THE CONSTITUTION. The dems inserted a senate rule to allow for the filibuster of judicial nominees - THAT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL - I've read the paragraph in the Constitution - and filibusters are not allowed for judicial nominees.
The repubs are trying to change that rule BACK TO WHERE IT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONSTITUTION, which requires only a simple majority, or 51 votes.
I'm not YELLING - I'm just trying to make some emphasis in the statements.
You can't do that. What you're calling the "Gentleman's Filibuster" is written into the current rules. The whole point, if I understand it correctly, is that cloture doesn't happen automatically anymore when actual/literal debate ends. But then I don't know much of Senate procedure myself, so hopefully I will be corrected, but I assume the best the Republicans could do -- short of the "nuclear" option or something like it -- is to "simulate" a "real" filibuster by refusing to close or open debate on any other issue, or some defined range of issues, until the nominees are addressed. The drawback here is that bills the Bush admin wants would be delayed, and that the Dems would get even more effective obstruction for which the Republicans might end up taking the blame.
I'm with you, ambrose. Go back to the REAL filibuster. That way, the Republicans will still have the option...if they have the wherewithal to do it. From what I've heard, the old farts on both side of the aisle agreed to this non-filibuster filibuster because they are too old to carry out a real one.
And this is a bad thing because???
Because Republicans have majorities in the Senate and House and the Presidency. We should be passing Republican legislation. If the rats controlled the legislation then I would agree that shutting down Congress is good. Last session some people wanted to go "nuclear." This would have killed the fetal protection law, internet tax moratorium, missile defense, repealing the death tax, 2003 tax cuts, and dividend tax phase out. With 55 Republican Senators we should be able to pass even better legislation this session.