| Main > Everything Else |
| Filibuster - 51% vs. 60% |
| (1/5) > >> |
| Crazy Cooter:
What does everyone else think about the filibuster arguement? Right now, the Dems can force a 60% agreement requirement. The repubs want to change it so only 51% is required to approve the Presidential appointments. Should it stay at 60%? I think so. I think that lifetime appointees for the judicial system should be required to have at least 60% of the people in agreement over them. That would require the judges to be "mainstream" instead of "extreme" (one way or the other). I think the judges should follow public opinion and not direct it. If someone can't get the 60% they need, they shouldn't be there. |
| Shape D.:
The 60% rule was initially used to avoid haveing whomever has more seats getting whomever they wanted. I'd like to see it at 66% a solid 2/3's. |
| mr.Curmudgeon:
--- Quote from: Shape D. on May 18, 2005, 02:09:10 pm ---The 60% rule was initially used to avoid haveing whomever has more seats getting whomever they wanted. I'd like to see it at 66% a solid 2/3's. --- End quote --- With the Republicans threatening the "Nuclear Option", they could have Cheney (as President of the Senate) rule that the filibuster is no longer constitutionally valid. That argument ran into a little trouble this morning on the floor of the Senate, when Sen. Chuck Schumer asked Majority Leader Bill Frist a simple question: SEN. SCHUMER: Isn't it correct that on March 8, 2000, my colleague [Sen. Frist] voted to uphold the filibuster of Judge Richard Paez? Doh! (Please note that Frist is leading the charge declaring that the filibuster is unconstitutional, when HE HIMSELF has voted to uphold the filibuster, so he could actually set a precendent using it. mrC |
| JB:
Personally? I just wanna see the appointments voted on. Running your mouth to fill time so the vote never happens isn't reasonable. If the national democrats did what the Texas democrats did and ran and hid to prevent the vote, they'd be chased out so fast... But because they just fillibuster to block something they don't have the power to vote down, it gets accepted. I say 51% to break a filibuster is rational. 51% to approve a nomination isn't. From the thread, it's not clear what bill we're talking about. I ASSUME it's actually about filibusters, not nomination approval. |
| Crazy Cooter:
--- Quote from: Shape D. on May 18, 2005, 02:09:10 pm ---...I'd like to see it at 66% a solid 2/3's. --- End quote --- I'd like to see that too. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |