filibusters

**vidcc** · 05-10-2005, 08:22 PM

for those outside the US that don't know, a filibuster (simplified) is where one party can prevent a vote on an issue unless a vote of 60 out of 100 can be achieved to move on...the idea is to protect minority rights against the actions of a majority party.
Presently the republicans are trying to remove the filibuster for court nominations so a simple majority will push through all judges put forward by Bush.

Personally I would like to see the filibuster go...but in its place I would wish all judges that are being voted for lifetime positions to have to achieve a minimum 60 votes.

The debate is not the rights or wrongs of the filibuster system.

should lifetime appointments to such positions as supreme court judges be allowed to be made by the simple 51% vote of the majority party of the day?..... given that today's majority could be tomorrows minority.

**Busyman** · 05-10-2005, 08:56 PM

I disagree.

The debate will be about where ever the thread goes in relation to the topic.

You mentioned filibusters. I say leave it be.

...and to your last statement, I like it they it has always been.

**bigboab** · 05-10-2005, 10:21 PM

Originally Posted by vidcc

for those outside the US that don't know, a filibuster (simplified) is where one party can prevent a vote on an issue unless a vote of 60 out of 100 can be achieved to move on...the idea is to protect minority rights against the actions of a majority party.
Presently the republicans are trying to remove the filibuster for court nominations so a simple majority will push through all judges put forward by Bush.

Personally I would like to see the filibuster go...but in its place I would wish all judges that are being voted for lifetime positions to have to achieve a minimum 60 votes.

The debate is not the rights or wrongs of the filibuster system.

should lifetime appointments to such positions as supreme court judges be allowed to be made by the simple 51% vote of the majority party of the day?..... given that today's majority could be tomorrows minority.

In the UK a Filibuster is someone who carries on speaking in the House to prevent a vote taking place. I understand he can not be stopped from speaking unless the debate runs out of time.

**JPaul** · 05-10-2005, 10:28 PM

Originally Posted by Busyman

I disagree.

The debate will be about where ever the thread goes in relation to the topic.

You mentioned filibusters. I say leave it be.

...and to your last statement, I like it they it has always been.

I totally agree, the debate goes where it goes. Regardless of the use of emboldening, which is actually a wee bit sad.

However I have to insist that, given the context, "wherever" is one word.

**Busyman** · 05-10-2005, 10:37 PM

Originally Posted by JPaul

I totally agree, the debate goes where it goes. Regardless of the use of emboldening, which is actually a wee bit sad.

However I have to insist that, given the context, "wherever" is one word.

I wanted you to catch that.

But this........

Originally Posted by Busyman

I like it they it has always been.

was a horrible screw up.

**Rat Faced** · 05-10-2005, 10:44 PM

Originally Posted by JPaul

I totally agree, the debate goes where it goes. Regardless of the use of emboldening, which is actually a wee bit sad.

However I have to insist that, given the context, "wherever" is one word.

Is the use of "sad", used in this context, now the correct English word?

Or have you joined with the youth of the nation in this regard?

**vidcc** · 05-11-2005, 12:00 AM

Originally Posted by JPaul

I totally agree, the debate goes where it goes. Regardless of the use of emboldening, which is actually a wee bit sad.

However I have to insist that, given the context, "wherever" is one word.

you are now 30 of the most boring people i know