I was for abolishing the filibuster then, and I'm for abolishing it now. The filibuster is in direct contravention of the Constitution. The Constitution clearly states that when the Senate is "equally divided" the President of the Senate (Vice-President) casts the deciding vote.The filibuster originally was conceived as a way to force all parts of a bill to be gone over in detail, which makes sense. The rule was then abused to stop the vote. Then when people got tired of that they just changed the rule to say you don't have to keep reading to filibuster.The filibuster as it now stands is completely and totally against the writing of the Constitution, and therefore should be abolished.Hopefully if they abolish it though, they will push for a public option at a minimum, if the Democrats use the "nuclear option" to pass this abortion of a health care extension bill I will be throwing my vote away on a 3rd party. Notice I don't say a reform bill, because this bill is seriously lacking the reforms which were the whole damned point of the bill in the first place. Instead they needed a boost for the 2010 election and tried to turn it into a health care for everyone bill, which is more popular.
@Mattman302First of all, my "name" is BinksterJ, not BlinkerJ.Secondly, I never said that the current system works - there is definitely a need for reform. I agree that we shouldn't make money on other's misfortunes, that's just ridiculous. What I am saying is that the reform should be fiscally responsible and still be able to help people without hurting the majority of this country. It's sloppy and sneaky legislation - Americans deserve better.
In 1964 3 years after the two track system was introduced they filibustered the civil rights bill for 54 days. Just because you don't want it too be true doesn't mean it isn't. Harry Reid filibustered for 8 hours along with other Dems in just 2004.
@FairDinkumMateThanks buddy, I am certain I couldn't have done that better myself. Of course, the nature of Digg arguments is that we're lucky if the original folks involved in the argument make it far enough into the thread to see these things.Oh, and it's great when people say things like "When confronted with facts, liberal diggers dig you down" in reference to a thread where they quoted no actual facts and gave no links to sources.
Bit late on replying to this but meh...@appleHighvoltage hit the nail on the head.@jhsimpson0What part of selective interpretation of Constitutional Amendments by the courts has anything to do with enacting new amendments? The AMENDMENTS are what is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. Not what some court decides is the feel good interpretation of the day.@sakisrakisI don't have to define speech, or religion, or press. The fundamental principles of the Amendments don't change.Speech is speech... whether its hate speech or love speech. It is protected by the 1st Amendment. It doesn't get any more basic than the Bill of Rights. But "liberals" selective interpretation would like to put qualifiers on the 1st Amendment... no hate speech for example. Only certain speech in "free speech zones" on college campus. Our pre-college campuses are already on lock down and most students are denied their basic rights to speech... you know, those zero tolerence policies.And bulls**t, its only complicated because LAWYERS make it complicated. If they didn't, they'd be out of a f**king job. Anyone who looks at the historical context of the Founders, the essays, papers, etc and then review the Constitution can easily grasp their intentions for a Principled, Limited Government. No one should be taking the Constitution at face value, but at the underlying principles. They are almost all universally applicable to just about any given situation. Selective interpretation by the courts have severly clouded the principles and how they should be applied to society. Its a power grab. I'd not sooner trust most lawyers than to trust a starving tiger in the same room as me. You remind me of my aunt... she believes that unless you have a degree in something you aren't capable (not qualified although she means that too), but INCAPABLE of having an informed opinion or understanding of something.Is that what you believe? That the general population cannot understand the Constitution on their own? That they need a lawyer to interpret it for them?How arrogant of you.
incremusJan 20, 2010
Representatives can't filibuster; only Senators can use it.
naieveJan 21, 2010
I was for abolishing the filibuster then, and I'm for abolishing it now. The filibuster is in direct contravention of the Constitution. The Constitution clearly states that when the Senate is "equally divided" the President of the Senate (Vice-President) casts the deciding vote.The filibuster originally was conceived as a way to force all parts of a bill to be gone over in detail, which makes sense. The rule was then abused to stop the vote. Then when people got tired of that they just changed the rule to say you don't have to keep reading to filibuster.The filibuster as it now stands is completely and totally against the writing of the Constitution, and therefore should be abolished.Hopefully if they abolish it though, they will push for a public option at a minimum, if the Democrats use the "nuclear option" to pass this abortion of a health care extension bill I will be throwing my vote away on a 3rd party. Notice I don't say a reform bill, because this bill is seriously lacking the reforms which were the whole damned point of the bill in the first place. Instead they needed a boost for the 2010 election and tried to turn it into a health care for everyone bill, which is more popular.
ldailey06Jan 21, 2010
"I wouldn't say NEVER. It might be nice to stop the 87% of they were doing something really terrible."That's why we have the Constitution
gkiltzJan 21, 2010
The filibuster has not really been used in the C-SPAN era anyway!
binksterjJan 21, 2010
@Mattman302First of all, my "name" is BinksterJ, not BlinkerJ.Secondly, I never said that the current system works - there is definitely a need for reform. I agree that we shouldn't make money on other's misfortunes, that's just ridiculous. What I am saying is that the reform should be fiscally responsible and still be able to help people without hurting the majority of this country. It's sloppy and sneaky legislation - Americans deserve better.
stinkypete312Jan 21, 2010
funny how rules need to be changed when they don't suit the party in power.f**king douchebag.
rahammJan 21, 2010
In 1964 3 years after the two track system was introduced they filibustered the civil rights bill for 54 days. Just because you don't want it too be true doesn't mean it isn't. Harry Reid filibustered for 8 hours along with other Dems in just 2004.
thespiffJan 22, 2010
@FairDinkumMateThanks buddy, I am certain I couldn't have done that better myself. Of course, the nature of Digg arguments is that we're lucky if the original folks involved in the argument make it far enough into the thread to see these things.Oh, and it's great when people say things like "When confronted with facts, liberal diggers dig you down" in reference to a thread where they quoted no actual facts and gave no links to sources.
richt711Feb 16, 2010
90% of the resolutions passed in Congress have over 75%. It's only hot button issues that sell advertisement that get coverage from the media.
richt711Feb 16, 2010
Wait, so now Barney Frank believes we should consider what God wants? The filibuster is in the constitution, I'd have thought that would be enough.
drazen77Mar 26, 2010
Bit late on replying to this but meh...@appleHighvoltage hit the nail on the head.@jhsimpson0What part of selective interpretation of Constitutional Amendments by the courts has anything to do with enacting new amendments? The AMENDMENTS are what is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. Not what some court decides is the feel good interpretation of the day.@sakisrakisI don't have to define speech, or religion, or press. The fundamental principles of the Amendments don't change.Speech is speech... whether its hate speech or love speech. It is protected by the 1st Amendment. It doesn't get any more basic than the Bill of Rights. But "liberals" selective interpretation would like to put qualifiers on the 1st Amendment... no hate speech for example. Only certain speech in "free speech zones" on college campus. Our pre-college campuses are already on lock down and most students are denied their basic rights to speech... you know, those zero tolerence policies.And bulls**t, its only complicated because LAWYERS make it complicated. If they didn't, they'd be out of a f**king job. Anyone who looks at the historical context of the Founders, the essays, papers, etc and then review the Constitution can easily grasp their intentions for a Principled, Limited Government. No one should be taking the Constitution at face value, but at the underlying principles. They are almost all universally applicable to just about any given situation. Selective interpretation by the courts have severly clouded the principles and how they should be applied to society. Its a power grab. I'd not sooner trust most lawyers than to trust a starving tiger in the same room as me. You remind me of my aunt... she believes that unless you have a degree in something you aren't capable (not qualified although she means that too), but INCAPABLE of having an informed opinion or understanding of something.Is that what you believe? That the general population cannot understand the Constitution on their own? That they need a lawyer to interpret it for them?How arrogant of you.