The Shrine

Because one party is all you really need

I hope this passes, Democrats suddenly get the majority, and we get to listen to the GOP whine and whine and whine about how they can't filibuster.

Seriously, though, I hope they don't remove them. Filibusters is one of the very few tools that the minority party has to keep the majority in line. It prevents radical "we can pass whatever the fuck we want" behavior from the bigger party.

Ok, what's a fillibuster?

It's when someone refuses to to relinquish the floor, thus not allowing a vote to happen.

And from what I've read, they're not looking to ban all of them, just in relation to judicial nominations.

From what i read, they just want to change the rule so that a majority vote will effectively stop a fillibuster, thus allowing the Repubs to stop a Demo fillibuster everytime someone starts one. I agree that this is very underhanded and would be a dumb change.

Kupek wrote:And from what I've read, they're not looking to ban all of them, just in relation to judicial nominations.

And this is good (and relevant) how?



So, in other words, the Republicans would be able to vote in the 10 wacko fucktards that would really screw up precident?

Zeus wrote:Ok, what's a fillibuster?

It's best to look at Wiki's definition. It's not that they can completely stop a vote, but if the other side doesn't feel that it's THAT important an issue, they can simply drop it, and the minority wins. For something that is important, such as the Civil Rights Acts, where Strom had the record-breaking 24 hour filibuster, the vote still passed.

It's basically a loophole in Congressional law that has turned into an effective measure to maintain balance among the parties. It's not like statesmen can filibuster all the time. It requires a good reason and dedication to spend all of that time yapping your trap.

EDIT: Actually, I did not know they can be lazy about it nowadays:

Wikipedia wrote:In current practice, Senate rules permit procedural filibusters, in which actual continuous floor speeches are not required, although the Senate majority leader may require an actual traditional filibuster if he so chooses.

Why can't Frist just demand that the Democrats use actual traditional filibusters? This would up the level of dedication, to see if the Democrats are serious about some of these nominees.

SineSwiper wrote:

Kupek wrote:And from what I've read, they're not looking to ban all of them, just in relation to judicial nominations.

And this is good (and relevant) how?

I never said it was good. I simply stated that is the case. As for its revelcancy, I guess it's only as revelant as any other fact.