I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend....

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Sully- who wrote (10291)	5/19/2005 12:15:36 AM
From: Sully-	of 35834

NYT on Filibusters -- Then and Now: The Volokh Conspiracy Today the NYT editorializes against elimination of the judicial filibuster. According to the Times' editorialists, the filibuster and other modes of obstruction are "all part of the Senate's time-honored deliberative role and of its protection of minority rights, which Republican leaders would now desecrate in overreaching from their majority perch." In 1995, however, the NYT sang a different tune. In a January 1, 1995 editorial (posted on on NRO's Bench Memos here), the NYT hailed Senator Harkin's proposal to limit the filibuster. <<< For years Senate filibusters — when they weren't conjuring up romantic images of Jimmy Stewart as Mr. Smith, passing out from exhaustion on the Senate floor — consisted mainly of negative feats of endurance. . . . Once a rarely used tactic reserved for issues on which senators held passionate convictions, the filibuster has become the tool of the sore loser, dooming any measure that cannot command the 60 required votes. >>> In 1995, the NYT endorsed a proposal for successively lower cloture-vote requirements to allow a determined majority to win the day, while still preserving the minority's right to prolong debate and voice its opposition. Senator Frist's 100-hours-of-debate proposal would produce the same effect, yet the NYT blasted this as a "No-Compromise Compromise" on May 3. Senators of both parties have been inconsistent in their views of the filibuster. That's what one expects from politicians. Is it too much to expect greater consistency from the nation's one-time paper of record? UPDATE: The LA Times, on the other hand, stands on principle and advocates eliminating the judicial filibuster even though it will allow the confirmation of judicial nominees it does not like. volokh.com nytimes.com nationalreview.com volokh.com

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next