Tuesday, March 15, 2005

Ok, I don't understand...

...the whole thing about the Senate Democrats crying "filibuster!" without having to actually filibuster. I mean, shouldn't we be seeing Democrats going hoarse from talking hours upon hours and nothing being done because the Democrats are talking 24/7 ala "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington?"

The Republicans are getting slammed for a "nuclear" option to restore the Constitutional requirement of a simple majority vote for judicial nominees. Where is the slamming of the Democrats for falsely crying "filibuster!" without actually doing it?

Update:
Ok, I called "The Rush Limbaugh Show." The call screener there explained to me that the laws changed in the 1970's so that all you have to do is call "filibuster!" and then it is up to the other side to get the 60 votes. I think it was a stupid change.

5 comments:

Brenda said...

Okay, this is where you and I often disagree. I think the decision to negate the ability to filibuster takes away an important minority voice to air issues that otherwise would be swept under the carpet with a vote.

And as far as Rush's explanation...
Rush? Okay. I would trust..like...0% of what he offers because I don't feel that he can give any type of objective viewpoint or information, nor do I feel that he presents both sides of the issue. For me to make a decision I want to know BOTH positions, not just hear how those of us who disagree with Rush and Bush are unamerican and troublemakers.

But I still love you. :c)

Brenda

Laura Ware said...

Heeheehee. First off, I still love you too.
Second, what the Democrats are doing is nullifying a Constitutional concept. The Constitution lists 7 circumstances in which a super-majority of Congress is required - approving court justices isn't one of them.
As for your opinion of Rush :-) I got the information from the call screener, and it explained how the Dems can get away with just calling "filibuster." I was wondering about that. Frankly, I think filibusters should be made to be true filibusters, and not just an empty word. And I would say that no matter which party was doing it.

Blogging by Tina said...

What would the outcry be if the roles were reversed: the Democrats trying to invoke the "Constitutional rule" and the Republicans crying "foul!"

Yet another reason why I entertain fantasies of starting over someplace else . . .

Brenda said...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45149-2005Mar17.html

Doing some more reading. I'm not sure what "rules" have changed. When the filibuster has started it takes a 2/3's vote, evidently, to end it. Thats how it was when the GOP used it in 68 to block Johnson's nominee.

Still looking around

Laura Ware said...

that may be when it changed. Used to be a filibuster was actually having to do something then just say filibuster. That's my beef