Discussion in 'Politics' started by JBeukema, Jan 5, 2011.
Why the 'Silent' Filibuster Is Unconstitutional - David RePass - Politics - The Atlantic
The supermajority is not unconstitutional.
Once again for the slow and stupid, The Constitution STATES that each house is free to set its own rules.
Funny, I don't see anything there that makes it unconstitutional.
Filibustering is NOT unconstitutional. If it were, the SCOTUS would have heard a case then ruled in favor of this theory. Since that has not happened it isn't.
Senate dems stated they would attempt to end the "silent" filibuster.
This is typical politics. When a rule does not work in your favor, change the rule.
The dems are going to shoot themselves in the foot.
When the dems find themselves in deep minority status after 2012, they will wish they'd have kept their mouths shut.
The funniest thing is the silent filibuster was put in place to make it easier for the majority, not the minority. Filibuster rules require the majority to keep everyone there in case the minority Senators ever take a break so they can vote on cloture.
Everyone knows that a filibuster must come with much wailing and gnashing of teeth, otherwise, it is just plain boring.
does that logic apply to EVERYTHING that is done unconstitutionally?
Your definition of "constitutional" reads: what I like is, what I don't like isn't.
You couldn't give a rats ass about the actual document.
Separate names with a comma.