skip to main |
skip to sidebar
“The Senate,” he said, “is not a majoritarian institution, like the House of Representatives is. It is a deliberative body, and it‘s got a number of checks and balances built into our government. The filibuster is one of those checks in which a majority cannot just sheerly force its will, even if they have a majority of votes in some cases. That‘s why there are things like filibusters, and other things that give minorities in the Senate some power to slow things up, to hold things up, and let things be aired properly.”
3 comments:
So I follow your link and end up with something quoted from the DailyKos....again, a noteworthy objective site! Your cite integrity holds to your consistant (low) standards.
Can you actually evaluate my response objectively? Try really, really hard.
Anyhow, on to op-ed....
I'm truly torn on this issue.
The filibuster is, indeed, a time-worn tradition in the Senate when one group is so adamant about an issue that they use the filibuster to block a vote.
On the other hand, the Constitution clearly states that a simple majority is required to confirm a President's judicial appointments.
What's complicating the issue is that you have prominent Dem politicians running around saying that judicial appointments are so important that they should require a supermajority (dare me to cite...I will).
So.
I believe that the Dems have a right to filibuster any nomination they see fit to. It's a Senate tradition that, AFAIK, isn't limited to specific circumstances. However, it's pretty clear that if they abuse the filibuster and apply it to a majority of critical appointments, the public will see it as obstructionist and they'll get their ass kicked in the 2006 Congressional elections.
Fine, since you see fit to attack my character instead of addressing the quote, I've changed the link to point to MSNBC. Satisfied?
Yes, thank you. :-)
Post a Comment