in_cog_ni_to
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-27-05 01:38 PM
Original message |
Are the RW wackos pulling a fast one on the Filibuster Rule? |
|
I know Frist wants to bring the Filibuster fight to the floor, but hasn't YET. Do you think the behind the scenes shenanigans are a promise by the Dems NOT to Filibuster Rice and Gonzales if Frist doesn't do away with the Filibuster? Then, after the confirmations the repukes bring the Filibuster fight to the floor and screw the naive Democrats? I think that's what they have up their sleeves. They are going to backhand the Dems on this...just watch. They DO NOT want the filibuster rule available to the Dems when the Supreme Court nominees come up. What do you think is happening behind closed doors?
|
Tamyrlin79
(944 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-27-05 01:43 PM
Response to Original message |
1. The dems could filibuster the filibuster changes, could they not??? |
|
I mean, the rule still applies unless and until they remove it... right? So, why not filibuster any attempts to remove the filibuster?
If the GOP really did that, it really would be nuclear in its consequences, I think.
|
papau
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-27-05 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
3. The VP can rule from the Chair no filibuster of the rule change is allowed |
|
and that ruling would be the nuke bomb that ended all work in the Senate until the next election as Dems use the Senate procedures to slkow things to a crawel.
|
Walt Starr
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-27-05 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
4. No, he sure as hell can't according to the rules! |
|
The rules specifically state a two thirds majority is required to change the rules. You don't have to filibuster a rules change, you just need a large enough minority to stop the rules change.
|
papau
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-27-05 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
5. The GOP appoints the rules interpretor - he rules that for judges the |
|
rules do not apply, upholding the ruling from the chair.
and all of a sudden we still have the filibuster - we just do not have it for judges.
The nuke option.
|
dmkinsey
(789 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-27-05 02:01 PM
Response to Original message |
2. No indication of filibuster |
|
Edited on Thu Jan-27-05 02:03 PM by dmkinsey
on Rice or Gonzales confirmation. Plenty of Dems plan to vote against Gonzales,as they should, but he's not a lifetime appointee. There simply aren't 41 Senators interested in going to the mat on this. We've got to pick our fight shrewdly. If * tries to put Gonzales on the Supreme Court a filibuster is a strong likelihood.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Wed Apr 24th 2024, 01:46 PM
Response to Original message |