Skip to main content

View Diary: Let the filibuster reform pearl-clutching commence (109 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  if the Constitution says anything on the subject (5+ / 0-)

    it's (a) the Senate can set the rules of its own proceedings, not Dana Milbank; and (b) the Senate has the power to "advise and consent."  Not holding a vote on a nominee is arguably in derogation of the great responsibility that goes along with the great power.  If there were some reason to think there aren't enough documents or something to evaluate a nominee fairly, that's one thing, but "i don't wanna" w/o 60 votes is plausibly unconstitutional.  

    The other gripe is that the "protection of minority views" so bleated upon refers to geographic balance, not partisan balance, and even then, the gulf between what are now the biggest and smallest states by population is much bigger than what it is before.  You can get a majority vote in the Senate with people representing something like 18% of the population.   The framers never envisioned that.  

    Also, since 1789, people didn't filibuster every little fucking thing:  only civil rights bills.  The Democrats under Bush used to talk about filibustering and then, you know, form a gang of x number and then not do it.  Why would we fight to defend the filibuster when we already let Roberts, Alito, Janice Rogers Brown, Jay Bybee, and whoever else be federal judges.  Jeff Sutton upheld the ACA so he's cool.

    Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

    by Loge on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 09:12:19 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (144)
  • Community (62)
  • Baltimore (46)
  • Bernie Sanders (37)
  • Civil Rights (35)
  • Culture (28)
  • Freddie Gray (22)
  • Elections (22)
  • Economy (21)
  • Rescued (20)
  • Education (20)
  • Racism (20)
  • Law (20)
  • Hillary Clinton (19)
  • Labor (18)
  • Politics (17)
  • Texas (16)
  • Media (16)
  • Environment (16)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site