|
|
|
|
coberst
Skeptic Friend
182 Posts |
 Posted - 07/23/2005 : 09:53:21
|
I think that one can develop a solid argument pro or anti filibuster.
Pro filibuster—With the filibuster it would be difficult to load the judicial branch of government with narrow-minded ideologues, right or left. An ideologically polarized judicial branch of government is obviously undesirable.
Anti filibuster—Jim Crow laws kept Blacks in a life style not much above the level of slavery in the Southern States for one hundred years following the Civil War. It was the filibuster that defeated any attempt in the Senate to bring civil rights for Blacks until the Johnson Administration. A masterful elaboration of this matter can be found in “Master of the Senate” by Robert Caro.
I think that a solution for this paradox would be a Constitutional Amendment that prohibited the filibuster but required a 60% approval in the Senate for all appointments to the courts.
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2005 : 13:27:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by coberst
I think that a solution for this paradox would be a Constitutional Amendment that prohibited the filibuster but required a 60% approval in the Senate for all appointments to the courts.
I had this same thought. I totally agree. Of course, the two-thirds majority required to pass an Amendment that effectively reduces the power of whatever party controls Congress virtually guarantees that such a thing would never pass. And especially now under this Administration.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 07/23/2005 13:28:00 |
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2005 : 15:55:35 [Permalink]
|
60 votes stop a filibuster now, so there is little practical difference between what exists and what you propose.
Unlimited debate protects the minority, and prevents the majority from just steamrolling.
Personally, I think that all legislation from the federal gov should require a quarum to pass, House and Senate.
It might stifle anything getting done, at first, but it would force a return to reasonable debate and compromise... something that the two parties both seem to have forgotten how to do (the republicans being the worst offenders, imo).
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2005 : 16:31:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
60 votes stop a filibuster now, so there is little practical difference between what exists and what you propose.
The Republican's willingness to use the "Nuclear Option" means that the 60 votes needed to stop a filibuster are no longer relevant. They only need a simple majority for that. |
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2005 : 18:21:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
The Republican's willingness to use the "Nuclear Option" means that the 60 votes needed to stop a filibuster are no longer relevant. They only need a simple majority for that.
They only need a simple majority to destroy a procedural tool they will find themselves needing in the future, eventually. I think they were willing to threaten to eliminate filibusters, but they'd be insanely stupid to actually do so. While I'll say that several of the ultra-conservatives are insanely stupid, not all of the Senate Republicans are. I doubt they could get the 50 votes, if they actually try to do so.
After all, there have been plenty of actual filibusters which have not resulted in their elimination, despite the majority wanting to do so. They've always needed only a simple majority to get rid of the practice. Heck, they probably only need a simple majority to change the number of votes to override a filibuster to 55, or just small enough that this current Congress can do it without eliminating the filibuster entirely. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2005 : 22:41:22 [Permalink]
|
If Bush's popularity keeps dropping, the republicans will not want to abandon the filibuster in 2006. It will be their friend again.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
