Fillibuster Opinion

[sentrido]

I'm a little late but...

I try to keep an open mind about these things, but stuff like this makes me all for it.

http://uggabugga.blogspot.com/2005/06/fein...apparently.html

Also, I dont really buy into the numbers arguments. It doesnt account for whatever nut jobs the President(all presidents, im not just referring to the current one) sends up for nomination. Most of the judges that were involved in the fight have shown a propensity to "legislate" from the bench, the rest were protests of the way qualified judges were treated in the last administration (michigan).

I never baught the argument that the fillibuster was wrong cause its never been used before for judges. Number one, cause it has (and ironically by the current majority leader) Number two, to use an analogy, if nobody has ever chewed gum on the moon, does tham mean its not allowed? AN finnaly, If you have to make a rule to stop something, then its not against the rules to begin with.
That said, Looks like cooler heads prevailed.

 

[diogenes]

The princple the Founders established was check and balances.

Right now, the ONLY check is a Dem filibuster.

If you want a parliamentary system, where it's more winner-take-all, well, that system has some weaknesses, too.

And you better believe, if Hilary were prez, Boxer majority leader and Pelosi speaker, the R's would INSIST on their prerogatives. At gunpoint, if necessary.