Abe Fortas
 

So it was a "real" fillibuster in that it shut down Congress and some gasbags had to keep talking for hours on end until they had to pee.

Abe Fortas
 

I'm all for requiring that fillibusters be what slave calls "real fillibusters." Make 'em keep debating.

Abe Fortas
 

When we start interpreting the Constitution according to Frank Capra's vision, rather than the framers' original intent or what's in the text, I'm sure that will be required.

http://www.bfi.org.uk/images/showing...washington.jpg

Abe Fortas
 

Well, common law, common wisdom, not so different as one might think ...

BR(also in favor of making millionaire sr. citizen gasbags stay up for days on end to stick it to the man - who knows, maybe after they lose their seats and return to private practice they'll think twice about forcing their associates into all nighters?)C

The Truth Comes Out
 

Weak.

Here's the truth: "Senate -- additional duty -----call bullshit on the Prez' nominations for judge IF THEY WANT TO." The Senate is free to advise and consent (or withold consent) in any manner they wish.

Your distinction is based on the premise that the Senate must serve as handmaidens to the Executive in judicial appointments (as opposed to while legislating).

Not so. Both are legislative functions under the Constitution. The Exec. and Legislative are co-equal branches of government -- and if the Pres. can't convince the Senate under whatever rules the Senate uses, the President loses that round.

S_A_M

The Truth Comes Out
 

Is this a debate about whether this is legal? Or just historically polite? A lot of these posts seem to hit cross-purposes.

The Constitution contains the (relative) unchangables. Everything else must be interpreted according to those precepts, but can vary as long as the Constitution is given its due. We've had rule changes before - that's how we got filibusters in the first place.

Is such a rule change civil? Maybe not. But both parties have had their very uncivil moments, so this is nothing new, nor is it particularly a badge of dishonor for any one side. It's in the nature of such a body to tussle procedurally, and to take power as the votes allow.

We all know that this is the runup to the SC appointments coming up. By itself, the rule change isn't that tough of a concept, but given the probable retirements, it's a critical one, and thus the enraged attention. But, I hope people remember that things cycle.

If they do change the rule, I truly hope that they do not then use it to appoint the most radically right SC justices they can find. At some point, Dems will rule once again, and it would be nice if there was some feeling, at least, that moderation prevailed over advantage. Otherwise, we're into a hundred year war.

The Truth Comes Out
 

I think we were arguing about the constitutionality fig leaf that Frist is going to put on his rectal probing of Senate Democrats. Of course he can do it -- he's a man -- but he shouldn't pretend he's not fucking them up the ass.

OK, that was maybe too much to drink with dinner.

The Truth Comes Out
 

The ass-fucking baton just cycles back and forth, and every new ream seems like the worst ever. This, too, shall pass.

The Truth Comes Out
 

I am resigned to the ass-fucking, but I wish they would stop pretending that it's anything else. None of this "fillibusters are unconstitutional" shit. Let's here Frist say, Reid, why don't you have a couple drinks and grab the lube, 'cause I'm comin' in.

The Truth Comes Out
 

You know being President is like being married- you get to put them/it in. It's like a right or something.

The Truth Comes Out
 

You told me you were married.

The Truth Comes Out
 

Is this the only senate rule that takes a super-majority? If not, are all of the others unconstitutional too?

Does the Senate do anything that isn't a "Constitutional responsibility?"

a new low
 

Thankfully, I got Pat Robertson's take on this issue, so I am now fully informed.

Turns out its the doctors who want her dead, 'cause there's lots o' money in "harvesting her organs." Who knew? The probably is capitalism. And, of course, evil, money grubbing doctors who are undoubtedly liberals anyway.

a new low
 

That explains the parents (it has to be incredibly hard), but what is Dan Burton's excuse?

a new low
 

I know you are being sarcastic, but it brings up a very relevant point. Her organs could save a lot of lives, and increase the quality of many other lives. So who in this debate is really conscerned about life. I have left directions with my parents that if I can be even slightly compared to a vegetable (which in my case may not even be much of a stretch right now) then I want my life line pulled and all my organs given away. Since I ain't getting no nobel prizes, I figure hey, if I give an organ to somebody who does, I could get partial credit. I won't have any use for them anyway.