Ok, lets get this thing rolling?? Lets get some opinions on this. Should the democrats filibuster the presidents nominees or not?? If so, should the Rep. use the "Nuclear Option", (and no Scotty, before you ask, no this has nothing to do with the missle on 24)? What would happen if the "nuclear option" was exercised?? Would the world explode, or the government, or even just the senate?? What if the Rep. party used the rule change to outlaw filibusters in general, not just those reguarding judicial nominations?? What if ALL senate filibusters were outlawed? The house doesn't even have them and they seem to be getting along just fine. Last time I checked they had not been blown up by some "NUCLEAR EXPLOSION".
So come on guys this is a very important decision for our nation, so lets get some feedback. (Also nobody has written on any of my threads....even if this is just my 2nd, so write anything....even if it is just Scotty saying he doesn't understand what us grown ups are talking about).
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
the rep party should block this filibuster on the nominees. what can we lose?
if they block the filibuster, the dems have threatened to shut down the senate on all other legislation. i say let 'em. then when the checks stop flowing out of Washington people will have only the dems to blame. they lose either way. and while i am not a rep. (ind) a loss for the dems is usually a win for me.
This filibuster should be blocked, and I really don't like the idea of filibusters in the first place. Not even when Strom Thurmond got up and spoke for 24 hours straight in '57. I understand the rule which allows them is for the purpose of debate to continue unhindered, but the speaker of the house should be allowed to alot a certain amount of time, and make sure that the debate is relevant. Would that give too much power to the Speaker of the house?
If senators refuse to show up to vote and we don't have a quorum, that is the senators' fault. Government shouldn't be put on hold because a senator refuses to carry out the duty for which he was elected. This is becoming a serious problem as many senators missed way more than half of the votes last year.
Senators are elected by us to make decisions based on the populous, just like the electoral college in essence. So, if there are more of one party elected that means the people are in a majority that way. Therefore, if the vote should happen and reflect the majority opinion, then most Americans will be satisfied. Our government is based on the majority for all intensive purposes. When it gets to the point that officials (dem, reps, and inds alike) are doing no more than whining and blocking up legislation for their own political career, then we have a serious problem in government.
Cvlngnir: I see that you are speaking with a "canup's forked tongue" already. In your first paragraph, you say "we" and referring that to the republican party. That would make one believe your a Republican, which would be great :)
Then, in your second paragraph, you say "while i am not a rep. (ind) a loss for the dems is usually a win for me." I assume (ass out of u and me) that you are saying your independent. What a cop out!!! I have a problem when someone cant make a stand. That's what an independent is!!! I would prefer a libertarian or socialist, to an independent. :)
Sneaky Ninja: loved your response and agree with it. I do need to correct you that the Speaker of the House does not control the senate. The VP is the leader of the Senate and breaks the ties, etc. Besides that, good job and your not hiding behind an "independent" label, are you!!!
"Scott was right" is music to my hears, sneaky ninja :)
Post a Comment