Posted on 04/07/2017 8:01:14 AM PDT by Kaslin
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.
Exactly
I understand a SCOTUS nominee has never been filibustered so nothing has changed at all. Removing the filibuster in this case restores the historical norm.
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.
W sure could pick ‘em. /s
Not on appointments it wouldn’t. There is no reason for it to exist on appointments. If you can’t convince 51 other senators that someone is extreme or unfit, you should let them through.
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...
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.