Breaking: GOP warns of a senate shutdown over filibuster

[Contumacious]

Well, that's an interesting historical footnote but here's what actually matters.These states, compromising the constitutionally mandated three fourths of the states ratified the 17th amendment..

.....and that no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of it's equal suffrage in the Senate.

no1 [noh] Show IPA adverb, adjective, noun, plural noes, nos, verb.
adverb
1.
(a negative used to express dissent, denial, or refusal, as in response to a question or request)

con·sent (kn-snt)
intr.v. con·sent·ed, con·sent·ing, con·sents
1. To give assent, as to the proposal of another; agree. See Synonyms at assent.
2. Archaic To be of the same mind or opinion.
n.
1. Acceptance or approval of what is planned or done by another; acquiescence. See Synonyms at permission.
2. Agreement as to opinion or a course of action: She was chosen by common consent to speak for the group.

.

[Calamari]

Time for you to scurry off like a scared little rat and whine to a mod ... again?

That's really all you do here, isn't it?

Not at all, there is no point to reporting posts. I know from experience that one can't rely on your whipped buddy Baltimatt to hold you to the same standards as other posters. For proof, just look at how long your post above remained.

[songfourone]

Not at all, there is no point to reporting posts. I know from experience that one can't rely on your whipped buddy Baltimatt to hold you to the same standards as other posters. For proof, just look at how long your post above remained.

I would not be surprised to see your post deleted and sushi's remain.

[sushilover]

Is one of the requisites needed for being an angry, bitter lefwinger that one must also be a petulant little whiner 99 percent of the time?

Sure looks that way.

[Calamari]

I would not be surprised to see your post deleted and sushi's remain.

You've got a pretty good idea how this board works.

[Phineas Finn]

].....and that no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of it's equal suffrage in the Senate.[/SIZE]

no1 [noh] Show IPA adverb, adjective, noun, plural noes, nos, verb.
adverb
1.
(a negative used to express dissent, denial, or refusal, as in response to a question or request)

con·sent (kn-snt)
intr.v. con·sent·ed, con·sent·ing, con·sents
1. To give assent, as to the proposal of another; agree. See Synonyms at assent.
2. Archaic To be of the same mind or opinion.
n.
1. Acceptance or approval of what is planned or done by another; acquiescence. See Synonyms at permission.
2. Agreement as to opinion or a course of action: She was chosen by common consent to speak for the group.

.

None of the states that failed to ratify the 17th amendment have been denied equal suffrage. Each state still selects its Senators. Your argument is only logical if one believes that the citizens of our states are not the ultimate authority within those states.

There are reasons to oppose the 17th amendment, silly ones that if successful would soon lead to Balkanization and third-world status, but to argue that the amendment is unconstitutional requires relocation into fantasy land.

[Contumacious]

There are reasons to oppose the 17th amendment,........

Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment

by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

[This was ] the original design of the founding fathers; U.S. senators were not directly elected by the voting public until 1914. Thus, S.J. Res. 35 proposes a return to founding principles and is therefore a most revolutionary idea. A good overview of the history of the Seventeenth Amendment is Ralph A. Rossum's book, Federalism, the Supreme Court, and the Seventeenth Amendment. Rossum correctly points out that the system of federalism or "divided sovereignty" that the founding fathers created with the Constitution was never intended to be enforced by the Supreme Court alone. Congress, the president, and most importantly, the citizens of the states, were also to have an equal say on constitutional matters.

The citizens of the states were to be represented by their state legislatures. As Roger Sherman wrote in a letter to John Adams: "The senators, being . . . dependent on [state legislatures] for reelection, will be vigilant in supporting their rights against infringement by the legislative or executive of the United States."

.

[EmDot]

So you approve of the use of the filibuster as a legal legislative tool of the minority party?

Stated so succinctly by Democrat Senator Schumer in2003:



2003 used by Dems: Blocking nominees by filibuster = Hallowed Process

2012 used by Repubs: Blocking nominess by filibuster = Obstructionists.

My question wasn't about filibusters, it was about Senate holds, but to answer your question, I have no problem with either party using the filibuster in a judiicious manner.

[bmore_ken]

but to argue that the amendment is unconstitutional requires relocation into fantasy land.

That's his address

[BlandFood]

I'm not just asking about nominees to SCOTUS.

Point remains they breezed through as a token of good faith. Now that they have seen what a piece of Anti American dog**** Bobo is I doubt he will get anymore courtesy free passes.

[johnpolitics]

The dems should make them do a filibuster.

[hst2]

End the filibuster and it ends for both sides. Any majority party seems unlikely to bring it back.

Good riddance.

[hst2]

My question wasn't about filibusters, it was about Senate holds, but to answer your question, I have no problem with either party using the filibuster in a judiicious manner.

Maybe they should be expected to actually filibuster.

[Joy in Mudville]

Maybe they should be expected to actually filibuster.

I agree with this. My understanding was also that a filibuster was generally designed to prevent a vote by prolonging debate. It now seems to be utilized in an effort to prevent debate altogether.

[Jeebus]

I agree with this. My understanding was also that a filibuster was generally designed to prevent a vote by prolonging debate. It now seems to be utilized in an effort to prevent debate altogether.

A tactic used hypocritically by both sides, but only criticized one way.

[Joy in Mudville]

A tactic used hypocritically by both sides, but only criticized one way.

The use of fillibusters while the Republicans have been in the minority has skyrocketed to historic levels. It is exponentially higher than anything we have seen in the Senate's 200 year history. And this doesn't even touch on the related issue of secret and not so secret holds on nominations of key government officials. Republican obstructionism has been out of control

[Calamari]

Yeah, Maggie tried to explain the concepts of "more" and "less" above, to no avail. Too complicated for Jeebus, so I had Grover explain it to him in a Sesame Street video. Still didn't take.

[Jeebus]

The concept of hypocrisy is so lost of cephalopods.