Posted on 04/07/2017 8:01:14 AM PDT by Kaslin
This from the woman who wants amnesty for her illegal alien maids.
Almost anything bad can be traced to the Woodrow Wilson administration.
In my memory (since Ike) the fillibuster was mostly used by the dims and mostly to prevent integration and equal rights type legislation.
The senate rules did not include the “filibuster” at all until 1917, and the Supreme Court nominee “advise and consent” process was not subject to the 60 vote clouture rule on debate (filibuster) until 2003.
Ergo: this ain’t nothing.
It is also necessary to overcome the practical reality of a Republican party peopled by milquetoast RIno establishment types. Democrats one admirable trait is that they follow the program set forth by their leadership in lockstep. There are no moderates nor conservatives, just Democrats. Republicans are so scared of bad press and their own shadows that they can be frightened away from doing something that is reasonable and necessary. A Democrat filibuster signals to the weak sisters that this is something important and maybe they should side with the Democrats on this one, to keep their credentials as being "reasonable" and not partisan. A cloture vote gives them cover. Hogway. If it just comes to a simple vote, they will have to choose, and they know they cannot run as a Republican and vote against key Republican legislative matters and appointments.
I hate the filibuster. It has historically only been successfully used by Democrats advancing a racist or fascist agenda.
The Reid Option works for me. Democrats would use it if the shoe was on the other foot - they created it after all...
The Senate filibuster rule might have made sense at one time in our history, but I would suggest that it all started to come apart when the 17th Amendment required all states to hold direct elections for their U.S. Senators in place of whatever processes they had previously (direct elections, selection by governor, appointment by state legislature, etc.).
I think you just revealed the flaw in your own argument.
When the Dems have control, which they will someday, they will pass all manner of legislation - it's what big government types do.
The ACA repeal debacle shows that once programs takes hold - especially entitlements - it's extremely difficult to repeal the underlying legislation even with the other party in power.
It's much easier to stop legislation via the filibuster than to reverse it once in place.
So far it is only the end of cloture requiring 60 votes vice 51 votes for confirming SCOTUS justices. The confirming of justices always only required a simple majority.
BS. The Dems have nominated ideologues like Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Has Chavez noticed that the Dems are batting a thousand when it comes to their justices adhering to the liberal line 100% of the time, especially in the major decisions? There have been Rep-nominated justices that have turned left once on the bench.
Several decades ago linda chavez passed as a conservative but after countless open border articles, the bitch let her inner illegal overtake her American view {much like GWB}.
Stay out da bushes...what disappointment and a waste of thousands of my dollars and countless hours getting that linguine spine piece of shiY elected as pResident.
I agree . . . and disagree.
Create Obamacare, then kill it. Even the democrats won’t create it again, not with the political price they paid, the disruption, and then nothing to show in the long term. Killing this expensive and disruptive an entitlement is one of the rare times when it’s worth almost any cost.
At this point in our history, we don't need an additional brake on conservatism. The Democrat-Media complex, the GOP-e, the Deep State, and every retired (and need-to-be-retired) politician are already making the return to Constitutional governance an uphill climb.
Our President is pedaling like crazy. Let's not put on the brakes.
The Republicans never had the stones to use the filibuster properly. Strike while the iron is hot!!
Linda Chavez, rewriting history. I loathe these people.
Where is the filibuster mentioned in the Constitution?
...chirp ...chirp ...chirp
Where is the filibuster mentioned in the Constitution?
...chirp ...chirp ...chirp
The “brake” Chavez wants via the filibuster is one we already have in the Constitution. It’s called the next election, and it’s been working quite well lately.
“Had liberal Democrats and Republicans who favored civil rights forced through a bill on 51 votes, the nation might never have fully embraced the changes enacted. “
OK - that’s her main argument.
“But Democrats, angry with Trump on a host of issues, chose to dig in their heels — and Senate Republicans followed the Democrats’ example by blowing up the remnants of the old rules.”
And that’s one of the final, or concluding, remarks of her article.
I don’t know about you, but I think her conclusion as a whole negates her entire argument.
Times are different now. The Dems are no longer statesmen. They are not even grown-ups any more. Democrat voters have consistently chosen to send their peers, third-grader intellects, to Washington. Third-graders don’t care if it’s 51 or 60 votes, they scream “unfair!” and kick and scratch all the way to the “time out” corner.
Even if it were 75 votes, there would be demonstrations in the street, sparked by unhappy children protesters, having their flames fanned by stupid “leaders” (classmates) like Maxine Waters and Chuckie Schumer.
The only way to take this country back is to get a new faculty who will not put up with foolishness, and send them to a new Principal who is willing to swing the paddle with both hands, instead of “time out”. I’m tired of their spoiled rotten petulant behavior.
Hand me that paddle, will you?
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.