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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: michael97123 who wrote (114590)	5/18/2005 3:21:56 PM
From: DMaA	Respond to of 794043

That is a completely separate issue not being discussed at this time. Should the filibuster be banned altogether for not judicial issues?

To: michael97123 who wrote (114590)	5/19/2005 12:24:07 AM
From: Neeka	Respond to of 794043

I think you're confused.

To: michael97123 who wrote (114590)	5/19/2005 8:01:57 AM
From: unclewest	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 794043

They already have that power. It has been there all along, albeit used sparingly if at all. Senate is an undemocratic body representing states in a disproportionate manner. Super majority is not a foreign concept because of this. I believe that casting one's vote is a sacred duty within our democracy. I believe that duty applies to the US Senate as well. We pay them to run our government. That includes appointing judges. Voting is done everyday across this country...in corporate boardrooms, in local and national committees, in classrooms, even at family dinner tables. Many of the issues, we are all confronted with, are difficult, but we accept that the majority rules. The demos believe they cannot win. Rather than participate in a vote (as they are paid to do), their solution is to have a temper tantrum like a little kid who's parents overruled him. The result is they accomplish nothing...NOTHING. If US Senators won't vote, it becomes even more important that we do.