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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (682560)5/17/2005 7:08:44 PM
From: Wayners  Read Replies (1) of 769670
 
Unless the Constitution spelled it out specifically, the GOP shouldn't feel guilty about going through with a rule change. You will not find the word fillibuster anywhere in the Constitution. There wasn't even such a thing as a fillibuster until the 1830s or thereabouts. Seems to me that if the fillibuster didn't exist before that, the fillibuster itself is unconstitutional for anything. Its also come to my attention that actual debate does not have to occur during a fillibuster. A member can simply stand up and declare a fillibuster and as long as only ONE member is on the floor and says they are fillibustering, without engaging in any debate whatsover, then there is a fillibuster in play. That is beyond ridiculous. The first rule change I'd make would be to require them to actually debate the issue and secondly require the debate to be genuine..not reading from books and the congressional record. If my proposed rule change was made, that would effectually end debate on these judges IMO.
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