Comments on: The filibuster must die http://ljforestier.com/2010/03/01/the-filibuster-must-die/ Musings, thoughts, and vauge wanderings Sun, 23 Oct 2011 20:28:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: James http://ljforestier.com/2010/03/01/the-filibuster-must-die/comment-page-1/#comment-310 James Tue, 02 Mar 2010 14:49:11 +0000 http://ljforestier.com/?p=750#comment-310 Indeed, simple solution would be to limit the debate to, say, two hours per senator. This way passage could be halted, for quiet a while if there is a large enough coalition, and once it's all done and over with, they can't say that they were not given time to voice their grievances. Indeed, simple solution would be to limit the debate to, say, two hours per senator. This way passage could be halted, for quiet a while if there is a large enough coalition, and once it’s all done and over with, they can’t say that they were not given time to voice their grievances.

]]> By: Mark http://ljforestier.com/2010/03/01/the-filibuster-must-die/comment-page-1/#comment-307 Mark Tue, 02 Mar 2010 14:25:13 +0000 http://ljforestier.com/?p=750#comment-307 Yeah, some senator was making the argument that the filibuster gives the minority the ability to have their voice heard since the majority shouldn't always be allowed to run unchecked. Last time I heard we had these things like checks and balances in place directly to halt any one governmental entity from running unchecked. Also if the people of this nation have voted in a group with a like mind set to the point they have a majority, then isn't that group representing the majority interests of the nation? Historically the filibuster has been used for such great things as trying to block civil rights. I would love to understand how the minority voice in the Senate needed the right to try and continue to oppress a segment of our country? I would be okay with a compromise of some form type of micro filibuster where the minority could tie up the process for a few hours before the opposing party was allowed to call a vote. Back in the day when Senators would simply start reading from the phone book it was stupid and it still is. Yeah, some senator was making the argument that the filibuster gives the minority the ability to have their voice heard since the majority shouldn’t always be allowed to run unchecked. Last time I heard we had these things like checks and balances in place directly to halt any one governmental entity from running unchecked. Also if the people of this nation have voted in a group with a like mind set to the point they have a majority, then isn’t that group representing the majority interests of the nation?

Historically the filibuster has been used for such great things as trying to block civil rights. I would love to understand how the minority voice in the Senate needed the right to try and continue to oppress a segment of our country?

I would be okay with a compromise of some form type of micro filibuster where the minority could tie up the process for a few hours before the opposing party was allowed to call a vote. Back in the day when Senators would simply start reading from the phone book it was stupid and it still is.

]]>