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: Neeka who wrote (115194)	5/21/2005 2:44:57 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793931

Maybe you can explain to me why these nominees are "totally unacceptable" to the minority? I can't. Knee-jerk partisanship and/or distrust, I suppose. It is a power grab isn't it? I don't see how it can be construed as a "grab." Trying to retain one's last ounce of defensive power is hardly a "grab."

To: Neeka who wrote (115194)	5/21/2005 3:14:38 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793931

Wouldn't it be interesting if Republicans in the Washington State Senate starting having filibusters in order to prevent legislation like new gas taxes from getting voted on. How about local levies needing a super majority, local school boards, votes in townships to add more policeman etc. This entire nonsensical mess began when Demolibs like Kennedy (who previously had called for an end to filibusters) started having a hissy fit over Clarence Thomas's nomination. I hope Republicans have the stomach to call their bluff and end the non statesman like teenage practice of filibustering judicial nominees. Just think about everything this nation has gone through in over 200 years, and in all that time the minority party never resorted to that kind of partisan ideological foot-stomping behavior before. Yet it only took 10 years since the Democrats have been Clintonized by the politics of personal destruction to practice it with abandonment.