I chose the following site that gives a brief history of the filibuster, and is very neutral in it's politics. In other words, this site is as rare as hens teeth.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Famous-Filibusters-in-Political-History&id=31091
In general, is the filibuster a good thing or a bad thing? Now many "Noble" implementations has it had compared to the "Ignoble" implementations?
Should it be used to PREVENT VOTING ON judicial nominees?
Why is the filibuster commonly known as "The Byrd Option"? And more amusingly, who have the dems trotted out to defend it?
The other thing that might be of interest is Senate Rule 31.
http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/rule31.htm
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI'm going to take my monthly stab at a reasonable conversation with
In general, is the filibuster a good thing or a bad thing? Now many "Noble" implementations has it had compared to the "Ignoble" implementations?
you, SVW.
Wouldn't you say that, as important as Judicial Appointments are,
a 3/5s majority (that is, a reasonable amount of bipartisanship) is a
reasonable expectation?
My opinion: I feel that Judges should meet at least that amount of
agreement from the representation of our country's people.
And, do you blame the Senator who is executing a filibuster for the
purposes of protecting his/her state from a judge that s/he opines
would be a disaster for his/her constituents?
My opinion: I do not blame that Senator who does it for such noble
purposes. I do not believe that every Senator executes a Filibuster
for these purposes, but neither to I believe that every Senator
executes them for ignoble purposes.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioNo. I disagree and my argument is simple. It never has been so. Why should it now be so?
I'm going to take my monthly stab at a reasonable conversation with
you, SVW.
Wouldn't you say that, as important as Judicial Appointments are,
a 3/5s majority (that is, a reasonable amount of bipartisanship) is a
reasonable expectation?
My opinion: I feel that Judges should meet at least that amount of
agreement from the representation of our ...[text shortened]... es, but neither to I believe that every Senator
executes them for ignoble purposes.
Nemesio
The system has worked quite well for a couple hundred years. What is different now?
Only one thing. For the first time, dems don't control everything. Repubs do. It is a paradigm shift. The dems don't know how to be losers. Repubs don't know how to be winners.
It is quite amusing really.
Originally posted by StarValleyWy
No. I disagree and my argument is simple. It never has been so. Why should it now be so?
The argument may be simple, but it is flawed.
It has always been so. The original rules for Senate never
included a time limit. They subsequently added rules which allowed
for the interruption of a Senator. These rules were further amended
in 1975; consequently, the number of filibusters went up.
You see, the threat of requiring a 2/3s majority meant that the
President couldn't pick the kind of polarizing candidates that Bush is
picking. A President wouldn't even try. Reducing it to 3/5s made it
somewhat easier to pick more controversial candidates. Reducing it
further would make the notion of Republic a joke; it would just mean
'majority rule.'
The system has worked quite well for a couple hundred years. What is different now?
The difference is (as stated above) that the fewer votes needed to
break a filibuster results in the greater ease it is to have generally
unpopular candidates receive the appointments.
Only one thing. For the first time, dems don't control everything. Repubs do. It is a paradigm shift. The dems don't know how to be losers. Repubs don't know how to be winners.
A good theory, but false. The Republicans controlled the Senate
between 1980-86. I don't have time to do research right now, but I
am sure we will find that the republicans have had majorities in either
and both houses within the past 50 years.
The Republicans are frustrated because they cannot elect the absurd
candidates that they want elected. I would expect them to do the
same with absurd candidates from the Democratic party as well.
The Filibuster is a means to keep power balanced, to avoid 'majority
rule.' Its abolishment would be a disaster.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioCloture. To prevent slavery.
Originally posted by StarValleyWy
[b]No. I disagree and my argument is simple. It never has been so. Why should it now be so?
The argument may be simple, but it is flawed.
It has always been so. The original rules ...[text shortened]... majority
rule.' Its abolishment would be a disaster.
Nemesio[/b]
Do you oppose the notion of majority rule? Why?
Filibuster was a method of the fanatic to defeat the majority.
Are you a fanatic? Why? You and Bob Byrd? In your little hoods? Hanging blacks?
It ain't called the "Byrd Option" for nothing. Is it?
Originally posted by StarValleyWy
Do you oppose the notion of majority rule? Why?
The notion of 'majority rule' is in utter contrast to the notion of a Republic,
where representatives of all people, majority and minority, have a say and
a means of influencing what goes on in their country. It is because of our
democratic republic that Civil Rights were possible without a revolution; it
was because a very vocal minority could not be silenced by the majority who
didn't want the power which they held to be divided amongst other people.
Filibuster was a method of the fanatic to defeat the majority.
I disagree with your opinion. The filibuster was a method to provide a check
on the majority, to help keep a balance such that a minority does not become
silenced.
Are you a fanatic? Why? You and Bob Byrd? In your little hoods? Hanging blacks?
It ain't called the "Byrd Option" for nothing. Is it?
Given that I am a 'minority' myself, the notion that I would participate in what is
historically actions of white supremacists is absurd. I'd appreciate it if you'd desist
with the insinuations and keep this debate from becoming ad hominem.
Nemesio