Posted: 3/15/2005 2:59:39 PM EDT
| All this stupid talk about the "nuclear option" from the Democrats in the Senate has me thinking. I've heard different answers from different sources. IS filibustering allowed when dealing with judicial nominees? I thought there were only CERTAIN circumstances where filibustering was even allowed? Anyone well-versed enough on Senate rules to clarify this issue? |
|
Isn't a fillibuster where a member has the floor and keeps the floor by debate until he can no longer hold the floor? And you need some kind of super-majority to break it? This is what I remember from civics class. But I haven't actually seen that happen where a member talks for 20 hours holding up a vote. They just threaten it. WTF is the deal? Here's the answer:
BULLSHIT! They should have to hold the floor. It's fake. Just like damn near everything else about Washington D.C. |
It grew up with the USA; in the early days of the USA I forget why and how it is legal. It has to do with debates about whatever law/candidate. In the old days, a senator can keep speaking and speaking and speaking to hold up voting. In order to stop the speaking, 2/3 of the Senators have to vote for cloture to make him/her stop. Today, they just say I want to filabuster, and that is where the wheels stop. The senators don't keep on talking and talking any more unless they want to do some media grand standing. A senator will then present a motion for cloture, if they can't come up the 2/3s then the candidate is pretty much dead. If they do, then a vote of the full senate is taken. Correct me if I'm wrong, because it has been about 30 years since I've taken US history. |
|
Just a little more history on the filibuster. It wasn't used in the early days of the Republic but came into it's own during the 1850's. The word filibuster is from a Dutch word for "pirate". Filibuster was used in the House also until they realized that unlimited debate with so many members could seriously limit the amount of business that could be done. Filibuster is merely a rule so it can be changed. Proponents of the filibuster conveniently forget it delayed Civil Rights legislation and was keeping us from entering WW I until Rule 22 (cloture) was passed. It's famous users were Wayne Morse, Ore., who like Huey Long used it to champion the "rights" of the poor. Strom Thurmond used it to thwart Civil Rights. It needs to be changed. "Nuclear Option"...puleeez! What a bunch of self important ass-holes. |
|
Allow me to dissent. The Senate filibuster is a good practice. It is one of the checks-and-balances differences between the (peoples) House and the (enlightened) Senate. However, when applied to "consent of the senate", which is what is required for Presidential nominations, the filibuster has no reason for existence. I am of the opinion that the less the Legislative Branch can get done the better off we all are. We don't need any more/new laws. There are already far too many. The filibuster, in the making of legislation, is one more brake to the new law creation mechanism. God, I love Texas. Here the legislature meets for 3 months every 2 years. Damn hard for the pandering idiots to pass new laws. DanM |
I agree the filibuster is a good thing in concept and something that was put in there for a reason. But about Texas... Its hard for the Texas Legislature to get anything done because they are paid next to nothing and hence have to rely on volunteers for staff. And because they make nothing they are forced to be "part-time" politicians so to speak by working another job. This makes them uninformed on major issues and more likely to pass or not pass something because they do not have enough information on it or experience with the issue. Man our state government is great. 
|
EXACTLY. You assholes want to hold the floor, get out the DC phone book and Start reading. We get 10 seconds of silence, we are voting on this. And it's "nuclear" for the Repubs to even talk about changing the rule requiring a supermajority. Fine, then let's apply the real rule. |