Federal court begins hearing on Senate filibuster challenge

Dec 10, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Washington Post

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.

Comments
41 - 53 of 53 Comments Last updated Dec 13, 2012
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#43
Dec 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Paybacks for political voter suppression....lol....

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#44
Dec 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#45
Dec 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Freedom of speech doesn't mean you get to talk as long as you want whenever you want wherever you want.
goose

Chicago, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47
Dec 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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.

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#48
Dec 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Where's that in the constitution?
I already quoted that to you. Are you dense?

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#49
Dec 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#50
Dec 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

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.

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#51
Dec 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#52
Dec 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#53
Dec 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#54
Dec 13, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#55
Dec 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••