Federal court begins hearing on Senat...

Federal court begins hearing on Senate filibuster challenge

There are 53 comments on the Washington Post story from Dec 10, 2012, titled Federal court begins hearing on Senate filibuster challenge. In it, Washington Post reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Washington Post.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#43 Dec 12, 2012
Paybacks for political voter suppression....lol....

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#44 Dec 12, 2012
au contraire wrote:
<quoted text>They cannot limit the time a person talks, therefore they can not stop a fillibuster, only change the definition as usual.
Where's that in the constitution?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#45 Dec 12, 2012
Freedom of speech doesn't mean you get to talk as long as you want whenever you want wherever you want.
goose

Carol Stream, IL

#46 Dec 12, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
Freedom of speech doesn't mean you get to talk as long as you want whenever you want wherever you want.
They can't, they must follow SENATE rules.

au contraire

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#47 Dec 13, 2012
Go Blue Forever wrote:
Paybacks for political voter suppression....lol....
Yes it is bad, liberals have been doing it for years. Why don't you stop? Oh, that's right, it's the level playing field you're afraid of.

au contraire

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#48 Dec 13, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Where's that in the constitution?
I already quoted that to you. Are you dense?

au contraire

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#49 Dec 13, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
Freedom of speech doesn't mean you get to talk as long as you want whenever you want wherever you want.
Tell that to Obama.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#50 Dec 13, 2012
au contraire wrote:
<quoted text>I already quoted that to you. Are you dense?
Nope, that's not covered under the free speech amendment.

Try again.

au contraire

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#51 Dec 13, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, that's not covered under the free speech amendment.
Try again.
Nice diversion. We went from fillibusters that I proved you wrong on, so you quickly switch to free speech.
oh yeah

Virginia Beach, VA

#52 Dec 13, 2012
Could someone remind me what the arguments against filibuster elimination were in 2005, and why those same arguments are invalid now?

For some reason everyone has switched sides on this issue since 2005 and I can't imagine why that would be!

I must be overlooking something obvious!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#53 Dec 13, 2012
au contraire wrote:
<quoted text>Nice diversion. We went from fillibusters that I proved you wrong on, so you quickly switch to free speech.
Not a diversion at all. I assumed you were going to claim Senators have a constitutional right to filibuster because of free speech. If I was wrong, then I apologize.

Doesn't change the simple fact that NOWHERE in the Constitution does it mention the filibuster, so there is NOTHING which prevents the Senate from changing their rules to eliminate the filibuster.

If you can cite the article/section where is says otherwise, feel free to do so.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#54 Dec 13, 2012
oh yeah wrote:
Could someone remind me what the arguments against filibuster elimination were in 2005, and why those same arguments are invalid now?
For some reason everyone has switched sides on this issue since 2005 and I can't imagine why that would be!
I must be overlooking something obvious!
The ONLY argument against getting rid of the filibuster is that the majority party knows THEY will want to use it when they eventually are in the minority. So NEITHER side will ever eliminate it.
oh yeah

Virginia Beach, VA

#55 Dec 13, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
The ONLY argument against getting rid of the filibuster is that the majority party knows THEY will want to use it when they eventually are in the minority. So NEITHER side will ever eliminate it.
You're no fun......

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

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.

Representative Hank Johnson Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News 4 Immigrant Advocates Arrested After Blocking A... Jun 30 Bakker 3
News The US is about to sell $1 billion in weapons t... Feb '16 Ritual Habitual 1
News Dem Congressman: 'Imagine a World Without Ballo... (Apr '13) May '15 Will Dockery 7
News Georgia Democrat rips Congress, forces lawmaker... (Apr '15) Apr '15 Go Blue Forever 3
News Congressman wants to curb military surplus program (Aug '14) Aug '14 Eleanor 3
News US rethinks giving excess military gear to police (Aug '14) Aug '14 Yes Man 1
News Lawmakers: Stop Giving Military Gear to Police (Aug '14) Aug '14 Bama Yankee 1
More from around the web