Do you think the rule allowing any one Senator to put an anonymous hold on legislation or

[Winterblues]

appointees should be addressed and possibly changed or eliminated? Or should it just be assumed to be Senate Privilege and part of how America works or doesn't whatever the case might be?

[niyad]

1. it needs to be eliminated at once. this is complete bs. at least the anonymous part--if a senator

wants to be an obstructionist--at least let that person show the courage of his/her convictions. otherwise, this crap is, as far as I am concerned, the senate version of the white hoods and robes

[Ozymanithrax]

2. If they want the rule, the hold should be public...

But is sounds rather patrician in what is supposed to be a little d democratic system. It even violates the philosophy that the purpose of the Senate is to ensure that the majority does not become a tyranny.

[Lasher]

3. Yes.

No.

[LiberalFighter]

4. At a minimum there should be a limit on how it is implemented.

Anonymous is fine as long as they provide a reason for the hold.

There should also be a limit of how many holds a Senator can have at any one time. And a limit on number of holds in a calendar year.

[damntexdem]

5. Dump that rule first, and then reform other Senate antidemocratic rules.

One senator, whether anonymous or not, should not be allowed to block legislation or appointees.

[Historic NY]

6. I think it should be FOIL'ed and the Senator exposed...they work for us.(US)