Federal court begins hearing on Senate filibuster challenge

Dec 10, 2012 Full story: Washington Post 53

Debate over changing the rules of the Senate moved to federal court just blocks from Capitol Hill on Monday as a judge considered a legal challenge to the chamber's rules.

Full Story

“Kiss Me You Fool!”

Level 4

Since: Jan 08

Atlanta via Brooklyn NY

#22 Dec 10, 2012
neutral observer wrote:
<quoted text>
Washington, Franklin, Jefferson... had fought a revolution to topple an existing government. The "a well regulated militia" part of the 2nd amendment is there for precisely that purpose. It is there to discourage the government from tyranny by allowing private citizens to band together and drill plotting to overthrow it.
That is why lunatic groups like the Aryan Nations and the Klan are allowed to...
If you think any weapons you can by legally or illegal would play a factor against the tanks, jets, drones, that our Gov would use against a militia you're not thinking.

Nothing you are allowed to buy would make a U.S. soldier blink.

That reasoning never makes sense to me when taken in reality. Everyone in my subdivision could be strapped with whatever we can get....yet we have no protection against one Drone, or Tank/s, or U.S. Raptor Jet.

C'mon. Sounds good, but think about. Unless you want the US Gov to make every Military Grade Weapon available to everyone, your militia has no chance against the US Gov.
neutral observer

Lake Worth, FL

#23 Dec 10, 2012
OneRyder wrote:
<quoted text>
If you think any weapons you can by legally or illegal would play a factor against the tanks, jets, drones, that our Gov would use against a militia you're not thinking.

Nothing you are allowed to buy would make a U.S. soldier blink.

That reasoning never makes sense to me when taken in reality. Everyone in my subdivision could be strapped with whatever we can get....yet we have no protection against one Drone, or Tank/s, or U.S. Raptor Jet.

C'mon. Sounds good, but think about. Unless you want the US Gov to make every Military Grade Weapon available to everyone, your militia has no chance against the US Gov.
We are talking about the 2nd amendment. Folks were still carrying muskets when it was written. So your point is...?

Besides the Korean War, the Vietnam War and all those other Democrat wars have shown the limits of modern military technology. If you do not have proper mines then IEDs can...
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#24 Dec 10, 2012
neutral observer wrote:
<quoted text>
Washington, Franklin, Jefferson... had fought a revolution to topple an existing government. The "a well regulated militia" part of the 2nd amendment is there for precisely that purpose. It is there to discourage the government from tyranny by allowing private citizens to band together and drill plotting to overthrow it.
That is why lunatic groups like the Aryan Nations and the Klan are allowed to...
You need to read the constitution, there isn't ANYTHING in it to allow a militia or anyone else to overthrow the U.S government.

For claiming NOT to be a teabagger, you sure sound like one,
A Nnoyed

Tunbridge Wells, UK

#25 Dec 10, 2012
OneRyder wrote:
<quoted text>
If you think any weapons you can by legally or illegal would play a factor against the tanks, jets, drones, that our Gov would use against a militia you're not thinking.
The Afghan's obviously don't think either.

For some reason they haven't been conquered yet despite numerous countries with advanced weapons trying.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Level 7

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#26 Dec 10, 2012
au contraire wrote:
<quoted text>Leave it to a liberal to unsurp the constitution.
Tell me where in the Constitution the filibuster is even conceived of, let alone discussed.
But I jest. You just say whatever you make up.
Booteafool Debts

Hanoi, Vietnam

#27 Dec 10, 2012
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>Tell me where in the Constitution the filibuster is even conceived of, let alone discussed.
But I jest. You just say whatever you make up.
woofe the 9counrt having Filicheese for breakfast!!;-000000
Booteafool Debts

Hanoi, Vietnam

#28 Dec 10, 2012
inbred Genius wrote:
The honorable judge hungerdunger now presiding. all rise
SEnate hav Chicago or Fili cheese sandwith or Luncheon!!;-0000

“Headed toward the cliff”

Level 1

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#29 Dec 10, 2012
au contraire wrote:
<quoted text>Leave it to a liberal to unsurp the constitution.
Where in the constitution does it mention filibusters?

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Level 2

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#30 Dec 11, 2012
OneRyder wrote:
Leave it to a Repub Senator, McConnell to be forced to fillerbuster his own bill after Dems played him at his own game.
McConnell is a waste of taxes.
Lets discuss how much time he wastes playing games instead of working.
California's Population is Moving Out, Census Report Shows
More people are moving out of the state than into the state, a new Census report shows.

When the tax base leaves, who will pay the taxes?

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Level 2

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#31 Dec 11, 2012
OneRyder wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're against Amendments? Like the 2nd Amendment...right to bear arms and stuff? Repubs don't support Amendments to the Constitution right?
Cause you sound like you don't like any changes to the Constitution.
.....you're an idiot. Think before you speak. That was way too easy. lol
Would you like to try again. We were discussing the fillabuster, not ammendments. Please try to keep up. Rant on child, the nanny will be there soon.

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Level 2

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#32 Dec 11, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Where in the constitution does it mention filibusters?
There is no mention of a filibuster in the Constitution either permitting or prohibiting it. It is implicit in the idea that the Constitution places no time limit on how long a Congressman may speak on an issue. Congressmen have the right to speak in support of or against any particular bill without a limit on the time unless that house of Congress imposes one. The Constitution in Article 1 gives each house the power to make its own rules of order. While now there is no time limit either house does have the power to impose such a limit if it chooses to. Sometimes if it looks like the minority party is starting a filibuster, the other party makes a motion to limit the time for debate on that bill in order to break the filibuster.

Level 7

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#33 Dec 11, 2012
tha Professor wrote:
Obviously it should be tossed. NO reason for one or the other side to simply say "Uh, it's a filibuster, you have to have 60 votes now, nyaaah-nyah-nyah-NYAAAAH-nyahh !"
Ridiculous and anti-democratic.
Exactly, it just eliminates the true purpose of representational government....

“Science not Conservatism”

Since: Jan 12

Progress, not Denial

#34 Dec 11, 2012
au contraire wrote:
<quoted text>Leave it to a liberal to unsurp the constitution.
SHOE me where it is in the Constitution, liar. SHOW me. Don't babble, let's see the proof.

“Science not Conservatism”

Since: Jan 12

Progress, not Denial

#35 Dec 11, 2012
au contraire wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no mention of a filibuster in the Constitution either permitting or prohibiting it. It is implicit in the idea that the Constitution places no time limit on how long a Congressman may speak on an issue...EDIT....
Thanks for contradicting yourself. You claimed it was in the Constitution, now you admit it was not but claim some sort of "implicit" status for it.

You are simply wrong. While there is no set time limit in the Constitution, that does NOT grant the right to an automatic declaration of filibuster and requirement of a certain majority in ordinary Senate votes.

Dismissed.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Level 1

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#36 Dec 11, 2012
au contraire wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no mention of a filibuster in the Constitution either permitting or prohibiting it. It is implicit in the idea that the Constitution places no time limit on how long a Congressman may speak on an issue. Congressmen have the right to speak in support of or against any particular bill without a limit on the time unless that house of Congress imposes one. The Constitution in Article 1 gives each house the power to make its own rules of order. While now there is no time limit either house does have the power to impose such a limit if it chooses to. Sometimes if it looks like the minority party is starting a filibuster, the other party makes a motion to limit the time for debate on that bill in order to break the filibuster.
Right, so there's nothing in the constitution at all about filibusters, just like I said.

The constituion allows the House & Senate to set their own rules. They can get rid of filibusters completely if they want to.

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Level 2

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#38 Dec 12, 2012
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
SHOE me where it is in the Constitution, liar. SHOW me. Don't babble, let's see the proof.
Oh my, more derangment from the candy klutz and jammer group.

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Level 2

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#39 Dec 12, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Right, so there's nothing in the constitution at all about filibusters, just like I said.
The constituion allows the House & Senate to set their own rules. They can get rid of filibusters completely if they want to.
The can not get rid of the fillibuster, only set the time limit. There is no verbage limiting the time or setting a time limit. You might want to read again what you already agreed to.

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Level 2

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#40 Dec 12, 2012
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for contradicting yourself. You claimed it was in the Constitution, now you admit it was not but claim some sort of "implicit" status for it.
You are simply wrong. While there is no set time limit in the Constitution, that does NOT grant the right to an automatic declaration of filibuster and requirement of a certain majority in ordinary Senate votes.
Dismissed.
You like your stump broke sheeple can not comprehend english I guess. Try pig latin, it's more into your culture of coruption.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Level 1

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#41 Dec 12, 2012
au contraire wrote:
<quoted text>The can not get rid of the fillibuster, only set the time limit. There is no verbage limiting the time or setting a time limit. You might want to read again what you already agreed to.
There no verbage in the constitution which prevents the Senate from getting rid of the filibuster.

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Level 2

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#42 Dec 12, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
There no verbage in the constitution which prevents the Senate from getting rid of the filibuster.
They cannot limit the time a person talks, therefore they can not stop a fillibuster, only change the definition as usual.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Immigration Reform Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Immigrants build document trails to remain in US 25 min Memo From Turner 4
Obama's plan: 'Deport felons, not families' 47 min xxxrayted 696
Rose's Pub (Mar '10) 1 hr Crazy Beautiful 137,107
For Obama, a good December, but hard choices li... 2 hr STFU 44
Democrats, Obama part on $1.1 trillion spending... 2 hr Tro Olla Smash Ola 17
Immigration Lawyers 4 hr Ted Smith 1
Congress can block use of fees for immigration ... 7 hr Memo From Turner 288
More from around the web