Skip to comments.
Let Them Filibuster: A Senate rules change may not be wise.
National Review Online ^
| December 15, 2004
| The Editors
Posted on 12/15/2004 2:07:12 PM PST by xsysmgr
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-108 next last
1
posted on
12/15/2004 2:07:12 PM PST
by
xsysmgr
To: xsysmgr
Wrong. Change the rule. They're usurping the Constitution. If course the Senate gets to make its own rules, but those rules cannot change the Constitution. There are 7 instances in which the Constitution provides for a super-majority, and judicial confirmations is not one of them.
2
posted on
12/15/2004 2:11:19 PM PST
by
holdonnow
To: xsysmgr
If we can change the filibuster rules and prevent filibuster let us do it instead of making all this grand standing "Let them Filibuster".
3
posted on
12/15/2004 2:12:13 PM PST
by
jveritas
To: xsysmgr
Why not make the filibusters "real"? Keep people there around the clock straight. Make both sides suffer the Democrat's stupidity.
Frist has no "manhood" left.
To: xsysmgr
But at some point, we strongly suspect that the filibuster would collapse. I disagree. If the left believes that a conservative supreme court appointee might negatively impact their beloved Roe v. Wade baby-killing machine, they will filibuster forever.
To: xsysmgr
But at some point, we strongly suspect that the filibuster would collapse. When? When the Dems get the power again?
6
posted on
12/15/2004 2:15:16 PM PST
by
paudio
(Four More Years..... Let's Use Them Wisely...)
To: xsysmgr
Frist should have ruled the filibuster out of order and proceeded as usual.
Yes, the Dems would have cried and moaned, but so what.
Now, Frist has allowed precedent to be set, if he doesn't do something before the next session begins.
7
posted on
12/15/2004 2:15:32 PM PST
by
TomGuy
(America: Best friend or worst enemy. Choose wisely.)
To: xsysmgr
What I want is revenge. Next time they have the power to nominate, may we filibuster 'em all -- every last one.
8
posted on
12/15/2004 2:16:00 PM PST
by
The Ghost of FReepers Past
(Legislatures are so outdated. If you want real political victory, take your issue to court.)
To: xsysmgr
It is, in our view, an implausible argument. The Constitution does not forbid the Senate from setting its own procedures.So the Senate can say that "consent" means a supermajority, instead of a simple majority? Give me a break.
9
posted on
12/15/2004 2:16:54 PM PST
by
mvpel
(Michael Pelletier)
To: TruthShallSetYouFree
You are so right....this is not your father's Dem party. The NRO editors are assuming the D's will act in their own interests. Tell me, when have we seen that in the last 6 years? Heck, I'm waiting for them to put Dr. Screamin' Dean in charge over at the DNC....because, it would be in their best interest, of course!
To: xsysmgr
The "nuclear option" was already unleashed, by the Democrats. It's time to respond with the constitutional option, which changes the Senate rule and stops them from imposing a super-majority vote for judicial confirmations.
To: xsysmgr
National review demonstrates the method utilized by republicans for years to fritter away whatever power they gain.
First rule of political power: If you have it, USE IT!
12
posted on
12/15/2004 2:20:59 PM PST
by
flashbunny
(Every thought that enters my head requires its own vanity thread.)
To: xsysmgr
If the dems regain the senate and we elect a dem president, they would change this rule in the first day of the new session. Why wait? While the dems may be unsuccessful in filibustering a SCOTUS nominee, they will continue to filibuster the appellate court nominees. Many cases never make it to the SCOTUS and are decided at the circuit court level. We need to fill these courts with conservatives and the only way to accomplish this is to go nuclear. Do it now and approve the likes of Owen, Rogers-Brown, Saad, etc. If not, we will look back in 2008 and wonder why Bush left 30 open positions on the circuit court of appeals.
To: xsysmgr
Actually, it doesn't take 60 votes to break a fillibuster. It only takes 3/5 of those present and voting. So the "simple" way to break a fillibuster is to keep the Senate in session all night. Let as many of the Republicans sleep in their offices as you need. As soon as the number of Democrats in the chamber drops sufficiently, that is, about 15 of them go home, call all the Republicans back for an immediate cloture vote.
To: ScottM1968
Exactly. Dont change the rule, dont let them filibuster. Make them filibuster, 24/7 around the clock. No more of this weak-assed filibuster where they just say they are filibustering and the GOP backs down. Bring in the cots and force their hand.
15
posted on
12/15/2004 2:24:35 PM PST
by
Tatze
(I voted for John Kerry before I voted against him!)
To: xsysmgr
They should make the democrats stand at the podium and speak for as long as they can, and go through the entire list of Democrats.
The Republicans should force the Democrats to conduct the filibuster just it was done in the old days.
16
posted on
12/15/2004 2:24:47 PM PST
by
Mike1973
To: ScottM1968
Why not make the filibusters "real"? Keep people there around the clock straight.
The best option.
Getting rid of the filibuster option is bad, and if you give it up on this issue, it's gone on all issues.
I remember when Clinton had majorities in both houses of Congress. But he never had more than 60 Senators. Just imagine what sort of Supreme Court we'd have had if all he needed was a simple majority.
Doesn't anyone else remember Lani Guiniere? Do you think Hillary would be any less prone to ramming through some ultra-liberal Justice nominations if she had 50 votes (plus a VP to break the tie)? Remember, it was Gore's tie-breaking vote that gave us the largest tax increase in history.
I'm all for impediments to effective action - when the alternative is greasing the skids for horrific actions the next time the wheel turns.
17
posted on
12/15/2004 2:25:18 PM PST
by
Gorjus
To: xsysmgr
.
If filibusters are such a good idea why did the first Senates forbid them?
.
18
posted on
12/15/2004 2:25:30 PM PST
by
mrsmith
To: holdonnow
>>> Wrong. Change the rule. <<< If the Republicans can't muster 60 votes to get cloture, how are they going to get 67 votes to change the rules?
19
posted on
12/15/2004 2:27:01 PM PST
by
Guyin4Os
(My name says Guyin40s but now I have an exotic, daring, new nickname..... Guyin50s)
To: The Ghost of FReepers Past
What I want is revenge. Next time they have the power to nominate, may we filibuster 'em all -- every last one.That would be a Pyrrhic victory. I hope I don't live to see the dems back in the White House.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-108 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson