Should we let Bill Frist & Co. change the rules of the senate ?

i think one party has gone out of control and power-mad.all i can say is i hope the democrats have the good sense to philibuster the HELL out of this bill. if only for the irony factor.

---

אָרַח

no, actually, it's not.filibustering a bill is killing time and derailing actual debate until the bill dies. the point is to distract and stop actual decision and debate of real content from occuring.

quote:

---

Main Entry: 1filibuster
Pronunciation: 'fi-l&-"b&s-t&r
Function: noun

​

2 [2filibuster] a : the use of extreme dilatory tactics in an attempt to delay or prevent action especially in a legislative assembly b : an instance of this practice

---

---

אָרַח

anyone see star wars, btw? there's a really good line it, by amidala, something to the effect of "so this is how the republic dies: with thunderous applause." no you're not mistaken. if i had wanted to say it's unconstitutional, i would have. filibustering is just a tactic the minority party can use to delay judgement or kill bills that they don't agree with it. basically, it's shifting the balance of power way towards one party, which is dangerous. no, i doubt that actually. i've seen a lot of double standards from this administration. or just perhaps a lack of healthy opposition, the democrats are not blame-free here. but clinton lies about where he puts willy jr, and he gets impeached. bush lies about where he puts the largest and most powerful military force in the world, and he gets re-elected. i think if the foot were on the other shoe, we'd hear some vicious attacks from the republican side about how the democrats are greedy power-craving infidels. or something.i'm not sure how i feel about banning filibusters in general, but this appears to be something designed specifically to mess with the judicial branch, and appoint judges even the right side doesn't totally like. this is similar to some bills that were written a while ago that had clauses written into them that judicial review didn't apply. it's just a power-grab to assert one party's position, and solidify their control over politics.and i think it's dirty.

---

אָרַח

yes, sure. and i think that it can be a good thing, even. and i think that taking away rights to do it is bad, because then it's restricting speech, and eventually healthy debate and opposition.but the point of filibustering is not to debate, but to stall. it's not about arguing the points, but talking a lot to prevent legislation from happening.

---

אָרַח

i dunno. what do you think occurs?is everything that occurs in congress neccessarily productive debate? no, i'd image they're allowed to talk to each on the floor of the house too.

---

אָרַח

hahahaha oh you kill me crash!

---

אָרַח

in this country, the constitution mandates certain things to be decided only by a two-thirds majority in the house, the senate, or both. for instance:

• amending the constitution.
• passing a law
• re-passing a bill over a veto
• trying the president or expelling a member of congress
• making treaties
• stalemated elections
• determining if the president is unable to fulfill his duties

however, senator brownback is technically correct. the appointees need only be confirmed by a simple majority in the senate. my point is merely that this country often sees fit to safegaurd the views of the majority by requiring two-thirds votes, and that majority often does not rule.

---

אָרַח

hear hear!i would have posted something very similar, but you beat me to it.

---

אָרַח

no, in confirming a president's nominations for supreme court justices you currently only need 51%. common misconception. in fact, according to article 2, section 2, paragraph 2 of the constitution, congress doesn't even have to consent, if they elect not to.however, by the same standard, if they elect that consent counts as 67%, that's up to them.

---

אָרַח

i like aclj less and less the more i hear about them. rampant bush support and liberal bashing is just plain idocy, and not part of valid political debate. liberals, like their name should imply, are for liberty.you make it sound as if liberals would have it so that all babies are aborted, and you'll have to marry someone of the same gender. it's not a matter of law. it's a matter of what the law cannot and SHOULD NOT touch. it's jurisdiction. people arguing for laws on these things want to extend the power and authority of government into the lives of individuals.and that's DANGEROUSLY close to totalitarianism.{edit: CAPS = channeling the holy spirit, as per my discussion in the style guide}This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 05-20-2005 05:07 PM

---

אָרַח

arguable, but i see what you mean. it is generally viewed as a way to prevent mob-rule in the senate. which is a sort-of check. not true at all. the judicial branch can only check the other branches, it doesn't do anything else on its own. it doesn't make the laws, it just tosses out the ones that are bad.similarly, the constitution can be amended by congress, which is a check and balance of the judicial branch. don't like how they handle the constitution? congress can change it.of course "Anyone with a basic knowledge of civics knows" that.

---

אָרַח

er, yes. sorry. states have to ratify congress's proposal. 2/3rd's to propose, and 3/4 of the state legislatures have to ratify to enact.but it's still a check on judicial.

---

אָרַח

absolutely correct. rhetorical question. bill frist is not just a senator but the senate majority leader. so his campaign would in effect be promoting that the senate changes its own constitutionally allowed procedures.how would the senate changing its own rules that were not specified by the constitution be unconstitutional?(granted, i agree with you. i don't like frist and his proposal. i think it's ad hoc and despicable.)

---

אָרַח

looks a little fishy to me

---

אָרַח

i disagree. i don't think ANYONE should stay out of politics. i just think they should not legislate religion.

---

אָרַח