Gun Rights v the Filibuster

[dirtbos]

I received an e-mail from a gun rights group that talked about the filibuster and some of the situations that it has been used in to protect gun rights. This e-mail included a request to “call your Senator†and support the retention of the filibuster. In my mind, this is the same as someone that lives in a very bad neighborhood that locks his front door every night diligently, but leaves the rest of the house wide open and vulnerable.

If I understand the make up of the Congress, it takes both houses to pass a similar bill, put it together in conference and sent it to the President for signature. Given the present make up of the House it is very unlikely that any gun control would pass. The Senate alone can not have much effect. A number of states, as an example, have or are attempting to pass an “assault weapons ban†anyway. Taking the short sided position of keeping the filibuster threatens our rights in many other ways.

Activist, left wing judges need to be offset as soon as possible. The balance in the judiciary needs to change rapidly. Leaving the power to the filibuster to a few left wing whackos is wrong thing to do.

If we had a President with some strength, he would look Harry Reid and the others in the eye with a “go ahead, make my day†attitude when they threaten to stop all business in the Senate if the filibuster is taken away. I would love to see it. Obstructionism would be very obvious in this case. Many left wing Democrats would go down in the next election, in my opinion.

We need to “clean up†the Supreme Court and all of the courts below if this country is to have a future. The filibuster needs to go.

I make this statement as an avid supporter of the Second Amendment. When I go to bed at night there is a 9mm semi-auto, loaded with hollow points, within my reach at all times. I am also a strong supporter of the Constitution in general.


Mike

 

[Aguila Blanca]

The system has served us well (albeit with some burps) for over 200 years. Tamper with it at risk.

You want to eliminate the filibuster now because you think we have a president who will nominate judges who think your way. What happens when the next president (or the one following) is a liberal who wants to appoint a bunch of judges opposed to your views?

I think we should leave the filibuster in place. I also think presidents and the congress (in general) should stop applying "litmus tests" on prospective judges, and appoint/confirm based on a demonstrated ability to read and apply the law -- as written, absent any political agendas.

 

[Sean Smith]

The absence of a political agenda is interpeted as having a political agenda by everyone, unfortunately.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Saw another thread in which GOA os cited as supporting the filibuster. They pointed out that the threat of a filibuster was used twice in recent times by OUR side to keep unfavorable language out of proposed legislation.

 

[Desertdog]

You want to eliminate the filibuster

It is clear, to us older folks, that the filibuster cannot be eliminated. The reason I say this is that the filibuster has been used in the Capitol since the beginning.

The filibuster today is not the original filibuster. The original filibuster was when a person started talking and kept talking. Senator Richard Byrd holds the record for the longest filibuster. The movie "Mr Smith goes to Washinton" is a good example of how it used to work.

What the Repubs are trying to do is change the rule, put in place by the Dems when they had control, where all they had to do is to proclaim a "filibuster" and then they had to get 60 votes to "end" the filibuster.

This works great if you enough votes in the Senate to permit anything you want to vote on to come up for a vote by ending the filibuster, which the Dems had at that time, and stop without a floor vote anything you don't want to pass.

It also ended the "majority rule" by making it a "super-majority" needed to pass any such bills.

 

[taliv]

actually strom thurmand holds the longest record not jesse helms

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The current "nuclear option" proposal being discussed is to be applied strictly to judicial nominations according to the comments I saw Senator Frist make on ABCs This Week w/ George Stephanopolous.

The only thing the Republicans are asking for is a vote on the President's nominees. The Democrats are currently filibustering even an attempt to vote on the nominees, so the process is going nowhere.

According to Senator Frist's comments the attempts to limit filibuster would not apply to usual process of legislation proposed in the Senate but only on the business of approving Presidential appointees (SecDef, SecState, judges, etc.)

 

[Standing Wolf]

[SMIRK] Maybe we should leave the filibuster and eliminate the Senate. [/SMIRK]

 

[dirtbos]

We can handle the truth!!

The key point here is what the Republicans are truly trying to do in regards to the “nuclear optionâ€. If they are only trying to affect the filibuster of judicial nominations and not the filibuster entirely then the GOA and others need to stop spreading BS about it. This is an important issue and honest clear information about it is very important.

Unfortunately my Senators are Boxer and Feinstein. No point in my even calling their offices for info. Bill Frist’s office is a constant busy signal.

If Bartholomew Roberts’ interpretation is correct (and I think it is) the GOA and others should be pressured to rethink their positions (after some research on their parts).

As I stated earlier, some thing has to be done to “stop the madness†in the courts.

 

[Henry Bowman]

What the Repubs are trying to do is change the rule, put in place by the Dems when they had control, where all they had to do is to proclaim a "filibuster" and then they had to get 60 votes to "end" the filibuster.

This is the only "rule" that needs to be changed. Actually, it's not a rule. It is just the enduring courtesy and gentlemanlyness (read: spinlessness) of the Repubs.

Make the Dems staff a filibuster! They will be made to look like the fools that they are. Why won't the repubs do this? It might look "mean spirited." The press would call it "an unorthodox enforcement of a provencial proceedural rule not used in years and never before emplyed by this desparate group of neo-con Republicans." Well guess what? the press hate you no matter what you do. Wimps. :banghead:

 

[flatrock]

Judicial nominees should not be filibustered. The role of the senate is to advise and provide consent on Judicial nominees.

The president appoints the judges, and the senate gets to say yes or no based on a majority vote.

The filibuster is an abuse of a rule that was intended to keep legislation from being rushed through the senate. It wasn't supposed to be a never ending blocking of legislation, it was supposed to give people opposing legislation a chance to present their side of the issue so the senate would be able to make an informed vote.

I have no problem with senate rules that require 60 votes to stop discussion on an issue, but the length of time an item can be filibustered needs to be limited. It should be used only to allow opposition to present their side and give them time to rally support. It should not prevent a vote on the issue, merely delay it for a reasonable period of time.

 

[dirtbos]

Thak you flatrock

Flatrock,

Very well presented and right on target.

I really enjoyed watching Hannity and Combs this morning (thank you TIVO). Hillary , Schumer and our old friend Ted really came unhinged while discussing the nuclear option. It was great. Their in a panic. A little acid in the belly of a left wing liberal is always a good thing.

 

[carpettbaggerr]

Judicial nominees should not be filibustered.

I don't think there's been a filibuster in 20 years.

Make 'em actually stand up and talk and this 'problem' will be gone in less than a week.

 

[nico]

I agree. The republicans need to grow some balls and actually make the dems filibuster before they start whining about getting rid of it.

Personally, I'm pretty confused about the whole issue and don't know who's lying the most.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Make 'em actually stand up and talk and this 'problem' will be gone in less than a week.

Well, yeah, but you don't understand: the mere mention of the word "filibuster" is enough to make those genteel white gloves Republicans hide under their beds and wet their panties.