I don't get how we can see it from a far but they are right there and still have hope. Then she really bummed me out when she said it takes 2/3's of the senate to change the rules. ugh that is at least 66 votes that are needed.
and therefor under rules is against senate business. if someone were to make a point of parliamentary inquiry to the senate parliamentarian about the legality of the filibuster it would then be declared as dillatory by the rules of the senate because it violates a subsection of the constitution in regards to senate procedure. then it would go to a vote. and bam filibusterer gone or at least thats how i understand it
say that only takes 51 votes. Does Stabenow (and the others) just not know this or is there some reason they're scared of it? I also think they can do this on an individual vote and it doesn't have to be applied to everything. Maybe I'm missing something here, but I'm not sure we get the whole story on this procedural stuff.
all hell will break loose. the gop will use tactics to slow the chamber down to a crawl. everything on the senate runs on courtesy of unanimous consent. from setting the calendar to allotting time to debate. they can resend their consent. and just fucker everything up. but if we get rid of it or make it just for judicial appointments. which i think is a fair compromise things might work out well
Howard Fienman. that dude hit the nail on the head... the administration has been paralyzed.. and campaigns are in no way indicative of how an administration is going to be
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.