![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Hoof made the point some think all legal measures (and fillibuster is certainly within the rules) should be used to oppose legislation someone doesn't want to pass. To me, it is perfectly acceptable to work within the rules, within parlimentary procedure. The Senate is designed to pass legislation based upon a simple majority. Fillibuster is allowable and legal within the rules (although it's covered and changable by Senate rules) What is happening currently, however, is unprecedented (and the Dems increased it's use in the last session, too, don't ignore that) in that fillibuster, and the requiring of a cloture vote of 60 to end discussion and have a vote on an issue, is the "new norm" for virtually every bill. In other words, bills in the Senate should be able to pass by a 51-49 vote. That is how the Senate works (remember all states, even tiny ones, have the same number of votes as the big states, two). The current Senate minority party, however, is forcing virtually all bills to have a 60-vote majority (the number of votes necessary to approve cloture and allow a bill to exit fillibuster and then be voted upon) The minority party is, practically speaking, changing the Senate rules to require all legislation have 60 votes to pass. What do you think about that?
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts |