4 ms·

No, they don't? The Republicans have used filibuster as a threat at an unprecedented level. The Senate has only nominally been in the Democrats' control. EDIT:

No, they don't? The Republicans have used filibuster as a threat at an unprecedented level. The Senate has only nominally been in the Democrats' control. EDIT: Punctuation

sigstoat 16y ago
i've never felt politicians were particularly courageous if they were afraid of the possibility that someone might talk for awhile. if something is so important, at least give it a shot. worst case you have to listen to somebody read his grocery list to you. (and he ends up looking like an idiot on national tv. the news will ensure that.)
- moxiemk1 16y ago
  This isn't the issue in a filibuster; the cowardice is on the part of the senator who refuses to give up the floor. The whole point is that you talk until the bill expires, and so cannot be voted on. Filibustering senators are declaring that they are unwilling to allow the issue to be voted on, not that they think their voice hasn't been heard enough.
  - sigstoat 16y ago
    uh, yeah, i know what a filibuster is. try reading again in light of that fact.
hnal943 16y ago
Until Scott Brown's election last year, the Democrats could have ended any filibuster attempt immediately. Democrats had a free run for a year. For the a year and a half now, the public has been screaming for them to stop. Brown's election was the first shot across the bow, but the Democrats paid no heed.
- moxiemk1 16y ago
  It's been a traditional courtsey in the Senate for the party in power not to shove through votes often, in respect that in the future they would eventually be the minority party, and occasionally need to filibuster as well. The possibility of removing the ability to filibuster has been discussed, but not undertaken for this reason. By filibustering so often, the Republicans are showing that this is no longer the custom. Which is fine; I think it's a silly custom, and we'd benefit as a nation if blocking legislation like that were impossible. But it is absolutely a break from common procedure.
  - CWuestefeld 16y ago
    I think your memory is fuzzy. For example, under GWB, the Democrat's use of the filibuster was also frequent and controversial. There were judicial appointments that went unfilled for years because the Dem's refused to discuss them. (as much as it pains me to defend the GOP)

No, they don't? The Republicans have used filibuster as a threat at an unprecedented level. The Senate has only nominally been in the Democrats' control. EDIT: Punctuation

sigstoat 16y ago

i've never felt politicians were particularly courageous if they were afraid of the possibility that someone might talk for awhile. if something is so important, at least give it a shot. worst case you have to listen to somebody read his grocery list to you. (and he ends up looking like an idiot on national tv. the news will ensure that.)

moxiemk1 16y ago
This isn't the issue in a filibuster; the cowardice is on the part of the senator who refuses to give up the floor. The whole point is that you talk until the bill expires, and so cannot be voted on. Filibustering senators are declaring that they are unwilling to allow the issue to be voted on, not that they think their voice hasn't been heard enough.
- sigstoat 16y ago
  uh, yeah, i know what a filibuster is. try reading again in light of that fact.

hnal943 16y ago

Until Scott Brown's election last year, the Democrats could have ended any filibuster attempt immediately. Democrats had a free run for a year. For the a year and a half now, the public has been screaming for them to stop. Brown's election was the first shot across the bow, but the Democrats paid no heed.

moxiemk1 16y ago
It's been a traditional courtsey in the Senate for the party in power not to shove through votes often, in respect that in the future they would eventually be the minority party, and occasionally need to filibuster as well. The possibility of removing the ability to filibuster has been discussed, but not undertaken for this reason. By filibustering so often, the Republicans are showing that this is no longer the custom. Which is fine; I think it's a silly custom, and we'd benefit as a nation if blocking legislation like that were impossible. But it is absolutely a break from common procedure.
- CWuestefeld 16y ago
  I think your memory is fuzzy. For example, under GWB, the Democrat's use of the filibuster was also frequent and controversial. There were judicial appointments that went unfilled for years because the Dem's refused to discuss them. (as much as it pains me to defend the GOP)