SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Moderate Forum
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Sully- who wrote (16725)5/8/2005 10:45:24 AM
From: jttmab  Read Replies (2) of 20773
 
Democrats have changed this & other Senate rules themselves
in the past There was ZERO outcry then. Why now?.

If there was no outcry then both sides of the aisle agreed with the changes. That's what we refer to as "bi-partisan".

For the rest of your quotes and today's environment. It shows that either side of the aisle will use whatever procedural measure available to them to obstruct a nominee that they don't want. Jesse Helms did it by keeping the judicial nominees stuck in committee, which didn't even allow a super majority to appoint a nominee, a filibuster can be broken by a vote in the Senate. They also used a Senate rule where if the committee member was from the same State as the nominee, he/she could block the vote without any justification. Breaking a filibuster at least is an opportunity. There was no vehicle at all for stopping Jesse Helms or the single member that kept the nominee in committee.

If they put a stop to this unprecedented use of the
filibuster, they will be on the right side of history, the
Founding Fathers, the Federalist Papers & the US Constitution.

Easy to say. The Constitution authorized the Senate to confirm judicial nominees. "Advice and consent" enabled the Senate to obstruct the nominees when it saw fit. The Senate established the filibuster rule over 200 years ago. The filibuster exists soley as a tool for the minority. It's always been that way. Whether it is "unprecendented" or not, doesn't have a substantive meaning. It's a procedural rule. All procedural rules are up for grabs. Both sides gleefully use them to their benefit when it suits them and object to them when they are used to their disadvantage. It's an extension of check and balances.

jttmab
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News