2 Groups at Odds With GOP on Filibusters

[proud2BlibKansan]

By Jesse J. Holland / Associated Press
WASHINGTON - Two groups normally allied with Republicans have bolted from the party's effort to ban judicial filibusters — the first major defections from a conservative push to prevent Senate Democrats from blocking President Bush's judicial nominees.  

The National Right to Work Committee, a 2.2 million-member group critical of unions, and the Gun Owners of America, with 300,000 members, say they fear eliminating judicial filibusters could eventually lead to doing away with filibusters altogether.

Former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, R-Kan., said on National Public Radio's "Morning Edition" on Tuesday that Republicans need to consider the repercussions.

"You want to think down the road," Dole warned. "The Senate's going to change. It's not always going to be Republican. It changes back and forth. History shows that."

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/index.php?id=2199

[Gman]

1. The Third Reich was to last 1000 years

just as the GOP now really believes their rule will last.

[proud2BlibKansan]

2. It's fun to watch them

lose their supporters, isn't it?
:popcorn:

[Nothing Without Hope]

3. Yeah - and let's just hope they lose their supporters fast enough! n/t

[imenja]

4. Fear it could lead to eliminating all filibusters?

"say they fear eliminating judicial filibusters could eventually lead to doing away with filibusters altogether."
I thought this was a given. Either they take away the filibuster provision or they keep it. I didn't think it related to specific kinds of votes.

[proud2BlibKansan]

6. Good point n/t

[rfkrfk]

5. filibuster, unanimous consent ... related?

How can there be ten filibusters, at the same time?
Is there some type of 'gentleman's agreement', to allow {other} normal
business to procede when there is not 60 percent
who favor closing debate...?
My understanding is that any one Senator could
shut the Senate down, by objecting to the routine
waiving of procedural rules, needs 'unanimous consent'.
OK, what point am I missing.