It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.



page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 16 2005 @ 10:33 PM
I stumbled onto this while I was E-Mailing Senator Frist in support of giving Judges an up or down vote for nomination. Democrats want to demonize this issue by calling it the "nuclear option".

From the article:

Myth No. 1:Filibuster of judges is a sacred tradition.
Fact: The filibuster is nowhere in the Constitution. It is not among the "checks and balances" our Founding Fathers created. It did not even exist until the 1830s, and the "tradition" involves legislation, not judicial appointments. The filibuster was used to defend slavery and oppose the Civil Rights Act — hardly noble purposes. The current obstruction of judges is no "traditional" filibuster: it is the first time in more than 200 years that either party has filibustered to keep judges with majority support off the federal bench.


I understand Democrats have no power, and if they lose the judiciary they are doomed! No more judges overruling the will of the people!

[edit on 16-4-2005 by Carseller4]

posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 03:25 AM
They already lost the judiciary. Look at the Supreme Court. Most of them came from Republicans, if I am not mistaken. I am also pretty dern certain that most of the lower court appointees come from the Republicans. After all, in the past 25 years only eight of them had a Democrat as a president.

And besides, the fact that they are dusting off this old law to use in a handful of cases speaks volumes on this issue. These "Democrats" did not use it for the previous 205 appointees since Bush took over. Don't you think that the people they are trying to prevent from taking over scare them more than having a warm embrace with a monkey with Ebola?

I personally think the right has purposely engineered this entire thing to further paint the Democrats as anti-God. I also feel that they are using this in an appropriate manner.

posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 10:38 AM
The thing about the filibuster is that it's a completely childish manouver and needs to be done away with.

The other thing about the filibuster is that it prevents a tyranny of the majority in congress.

I've always been on the fence about this issue. It should be used, I feel, as a last ditch effort, and not because you didn't get your way. Let the political process move, save the filibuster for vital scenarios, absolutely vital.

posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 01:17 PM
No one claims that the filibuster is a constitutional thing. Its a parliamentary thing, and the rules of order in most groups like congress permit it.

The only reason there is talk of getting rid of it is because one party is now incensed over it.

The filibuster isn't a real thing. The rules of debate allow debate on a subject to continue until there are something like 60 people on either side ready to vote. Removing that rule is pointless and silly.

posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 01:44 PM
Quite frankly, I think we need to keep the filibuster. The Republicans are a little short sighted in getting rid of a minority party's powers in congress. However, I think the Republicans need to force the dems to really have a filibuster. As of now, the dems are allowed to go home, get some sleep, eat, etc. In the 1800s, there was a filibuster effort being made by the minority party (don't remember the date, the issue, or the parties, just the general story
) . For something like 5 days, no one left the building because just one vote was needed to overturn the filibuster. Republicans need to stay on the job, and if someone from the other side gets up to go to the bathroom, they vote. If you're gonna do something, do it right. 24/7 monitoring of participants. As soon as someone drops the ball, the republicans call a vote, overturn the filibuster, and get something done in the capitol for a change.

posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 03:01 PM
.... it is a great example of how the sheep are shepparded, no? THat even a carsalesman gets up on a soap box and pontificates about a parlimentary procedure, as if some group is stealing mother's milk straight from the teet?
Lordy me!

top topics

log in