JF, No, it's the "religious party" that is threatening to change the rules wrt filibusters; the nuclear option.
So let's say the tables are turned, and the so-called "religious party" is in the minority. If they start using the filibuster to, as you say, push a "religious debate," you and Ted and CJ would advocate using the "nuclear option" without a second thought.
On the contrary........I don't know what JF and CJ think but I believe in our democracy just as it is.
How do I know this? I can tell from the way you guys accuse only the other side of partisan politics. (Oh, sorry, "religious politics.") Any political option is OK if it's your side, but if it's the other side, you guys would be having kittens.
No, that's the way you all think. You're projecting again. ;~)
By the way, just for the record, I don't think the GOP should use the "nuclear option." George Will said it best. There is a political solution to all of the filibustering going on: a 60 senator majority. I'd take that idea further and say with the number of "red states" in this nation, a 60 senator majority is very possible in the Senate.
Why not leave it the way it is? Its worked well for 88 years.
ted |
