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 (16803)	5/9/2005 3:59:08 PM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

The filibusters against current nominees is unprecedented. Arbitrary. The filibuster itself has a long history. All you've done is identify a current use of it, which by definition is unprecendted. Every time it's ever been used can be couched in terms of unprecedented use. I'm certain that the Republicans are pissed that they missed that one. Any opinions or assertions in favor of them are on the wrong side of history, the Constitution, the will of the Founding Fathers & the Federalist Papers. Unsupported. Please feel free to hold any opinion you wish. Not something I ever felt I needed your permission for. I support the Senate in making rule changes that are in keeping with historical precedent, the Constitution & which keeps the balance of powers in proper check. That's cool. Though your list of qualifying criteria, reminds me of some earlier legislation that was pushed by and passed by the Republican Congress. The line item veto. Qualifying criteria: Historical precedent: Nope Constitutional: Nope Keeps the balance of powers in proper check: Nope Good to see y'al are interested in those criteria now. If only you knew how to apply them, we would all be walking hand in hand in the Rose Garden, much like Bush and the Saudi Prince. Holding hands and doing the kissy face. jttmab