From 1789 Till 1917

[NYcarbineer]

When the dems eliminated the filibuster out of political convenience it proved that they were willing to change the rules when it suited their agenda. The filibuster died that day. The dems will try and hide behind the fact they did not extend it to the SCOTUS but in the end they left the republicans with little choice - clearly the dems would ignore the 60 vote rule when they wanted and it would not behoove the right to tie one hand behind their back out of principal.

The filibuster remains for law as of today but that is in name only - it will be expelled the instant the majority party sees a gain in doing so. I said it was over when Reid pulled this idiocy the first time and the naysayers were determined to bleet that it only extended to appointments in lower courts. The inevitable outcome here should have been glaringly obvious.

You DO realize that filibuster isn't a law, and never has been, don't you? It's always been merely a procedural rule, subject to change by the Senate whenever they felt like it.

Yes. You will note that nowhere did I state that the filibuster was law. Do you have an actual point.

"The filibuster remains for law". That WAS you, was it not? Or are we doing that leftist thing of "What? You think I meant that just because I said it?"

Does making it nice and big help you with your reading comprehension issues Cecilie or do I need to explain to you what the difference between stating "for law" and "is law" in English.

So your argument is that you were being ignorant in a completely different way? Well, okay, if that's what you wanna go with.

Just to bring you back on topic, the Founders believed that you should be able to vote.

 

[FA_Q2]

When the dems eliminated the filibuster out of political convenience it proved that they were willing to change the rules when it suited their agenda. The filibuster died that day. The dems will try and hide behind the fact they did not extend it to the SCOTUS but in the end they left the republicans with little choice - clearly the dems would ignore the 60 vote rule when they wanted and it would not behoove the right to tie one hand behind their back out of principal.

The filibuster remains for law as of today but that is in name only - it will be expelled the instant the majority party sees a gain in doing so. I said it was over when Reid pulled this idiocy the first time and the naysayers were determined to bleet that it only extended to appointments in lower courts. The inevitable outcome here should have been glaringly obvious.

You DO realize that filibuster isn't a law, and never has been, don't you? It's always been merely a procedural rule, subject to change by the Senate whenever they felt like it.

Yes. You will note that nowhere did I state that the filibuster was law. Do you have an actual point.

"The filibuster remains for law". That WAS you, was it not? Or are we doing that leftist thing of "What? You think I meant that just because I said it?"

Does making it nice and big help you with your reading comprehension issues Cecilie or do I need to explain to you what the difference between stating "for law" and "is law" in English.

So your argument is that you were being ignorant in a completely different way? Well, okay, if that's what you wanna go with.

You really want to just throw your ignorance out there once again because you cannot admit you made a simple mistake. I guess I need to explain simple English to you.

The filibuster still applies for law because the filibuster process is still in place when the senate is voting on passing law. The process in that regard remains. The senate has not changed the rules to do away with the current cloture process at this time when they are debating law.

 

[FA_Q2]

You DO realize that filibuster isn't a law, and never has been, don't you? It's always been merely a procedural rule, subject to change by the Senate whenever they felt like it.

Yes. You will note that nowhere did I state that the filibuster was law. Do you have an actual point.

"The filibuster remains for law". That WAS you, was it not? Or are we doing that leftist thing of "What? You think I meant that just because I said it?"

Does making it nice and big help you with your reading comprehension issues Cecilie or do I need to explain to you what the difference between stating "for law" and "is law" in English.

So your argument is that you were being ignorant in a completely different way? Well, okay, if that's what you wanna go with.

Just to bring you back on topic, the Founders believed that you should be able to vote.

Care to show where the founders argued against setting up rules that gave the minority power to be relevant.

That really is what the filibuster is about, the minority having some power. The constitution itself is utterly silent - the houses are able to establish their own processes as they see fit.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You DO realize that filibuster isn't a law, and never has been, don't you? It's always been merely a procedural rule, subject to change by the Senate whenever they felt like it.

Yes. You will note that nowhere did I state that the filibuster was law. Do you have an actual point.

"The filibuster remains for law". That WAS you, was it not? Or are we doing that leftist thing of "What? You think I meant that just because I said it?"

Does making it nice and big help you with your reading comprehension issues Cecilie or do I need to explain to you what the difference between stating "for law" and "is law" in English.

So your argument is that you were being ignorant in a completely different way? Well, okay, if that's what you wanna go with.

You really want to just throw your ignorance out there once again because you cannot admit you made a simple mistake. I guess I need to explain simple English to you.

The filibuster still applies for law because the filibuster process is still in place when the senate is voting on passing law. The process in that regard remains. The senate has not changed the rules to do away with the current cloture process at this time when they are debating law.

So like I said, you're wrong and ignorant.

Because the filibuster is nothing more than a Senate procedure, it applies to nothing whatsoever that the Senate leadership does not want it to. You can cling to your vain hopes of bullying some sort of control over the situation, and good luck to you with that if it'll keep you from wetting the bed with terrifying Republican nightmares, but the fact of the matter is, your party is effectively irrelevant.

 

[FA_Q2]

Yes. You will note that nowhere did I state that the filibuster was law. Do you have an actual point.

"The filibuster remains for law". That WAS you, was it not? Or are we doing that leftist thing of "What? You think I meant that just because I said it?"

Does making it nice and big help you with your reading comprehension issues Cecilie or do I need to explain to you what the difference between stating "for law" and "is law" in English.

So your argument is that you were being ignorant in a completely different way? Well, okay, if that's what you wanna go with.

You really want to just throw your ignorance out there once again because you cannot admit you made a simple mistake. I guess I need to explain simple English to you.

The filibuster still applies for law because the filibuster process is still in place when the senate is voting on passing law. The process in that regard remains. The senate has not changed the rules to do away with the current cloture process at this time when they are debating law.

So like I said, you're wrong and ignorant.

Because the filibuster is nothing more than a Senate procedure, it applies to nothing whatsoever that the Senate leadership does not want it to. You can cling to your vain hopes of bullying some sort of control over the situation, and good luck to you with that if it'll keep you from wetting the bed with terrifying Republican nightmares, but the fact of the matter is, your party is effectively irrelevant.

lol.

Laughable that you are still being an idiot when the obvious has been pointed out so clearly to you. Carry on with your ignorance.

 

[Cecilie1200]

"The filibuster remains for law". That WAS you, was it not? Or are we doing that leftist thing of "What? You think I meant that just because I said it?"

Does making it nice and big help you with your reading comprehension issues Cecilie or do I need to explain to you what the difference between stating "for law" and "is law" in English.

So your argument is that you were being ignorant in a completely different way? Well, okay, if that's what you wanna go with.

You really want to just throw your ignorance out there once again because you cannot admit you made a simple mistake. I guess I need to explain simple English to you.

The filibuster still applies for law because the filibuster process is still in place when the senate is voting on passing law. The process in that regard remains. The senate has not changed the rules to do away with the current cloture process at this time when they are debating law.

So like I said, you're wrong and ignorant.

Because the filibuster is nothing more than a Senate procedure, it applies to nothing whatsoever that the Senate leadership does not want it to. You can cling to your vain hopes of bullying some sort of control over the situation, and good luck to you with that if it'll keep you from wetting the bed with terrifying Republican nightmares, but the fact of the matter is, your party is effectively irrelevant.

lol.

Laughable that you are still being an idiot when the obvious has been pointed out so clearly to you. Carry on with your ignorance.

Laughable that you are still trying to deflect with insults to avoid the facts. Carry on with your vain hopes. It'll be that much more enjoyable when you're forced to admit your impotence.