Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (16725)	5/8/2005 10:45:24 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to 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

To: Sully- who wrote (16725)	5/8/2005 6:52:16 PM
From: 49thMIMOMander	Respond to of 20773

Mr Phil-Buster is the only thing which makes US appear as something like a semi-pseudo-democracy. (is that Solon still around, never understood anything of it) Mr Phil has very ancient roots, much older than US likes to admit. (Although Bush kind of said it, once again, today, and everyone just laughed at him) However, nobody has ever claimed that a funny two-party-system would be nothing but funny, especially with Mr Gerry Mander and Mr Phil Buster, Mr Pavlov Orwell too, all rolling around in their graves. PS Traditionally, Urricans are not supposed to understand anything of this, it would even be extremely dangerous, despite the funny institutional pseudo educational stuff.