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

To: Sherman Logan; pabianice; All

double question. 1. would this prevent the old school style of filibuster where they actually stand and talk? 2. Would we be against a filibuster change where you would actually be forced to filibuster?


62 posted on 12/05/2012 1:20:01 PM PST by HenryArmitage (it was not meant that we should voyage far.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies ]


To: HenryArmitage

The filibuster is not part of the Constitution. It is entirely up to each Senate to establish its own rules for that session. Within of course the bounds set by the Constitution.

I have no problem with a limitation on the filibuster, either the old or the new version.

Its primary effect in recent years seems to have been to allow the majority to dodge responsibility, claiming its all the fault of that obstructive minority.

But it is egregious for Democrats who proclaimed the sanctity of the institution just a few years ago to now say it should be discarded.


64 posted on 12/05/2012 1:45:50 PM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies ]

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