The republican senate is looking to put an end to the filibuster.
What is your take on this?

I think we should get rid of the filibuster. Seems very unfair to me.

I am hesitant to remove the filibuster, it has long been a tradition of the US Congress, who can forget the movie, Mr Smith Goes to Washington. However, the method in which the minority is using the filibuster in confirmation on judges is not within the good faith of the Constitution.

The President is empowered by the Constitution to submit to the Congress nominations for office. The Senate is given the power of advice and consent. This power is enumerated under Article II of the Constitution, which describes the powers of the Executive, and not that of the Executive. I believe that under the advice and consent clause of Article II of the Constitution is being violated by the minority.

I beleive that the minority of the Senate is corrupting and violating their Constitutional duties. We are a republic, which means we have government that should be representative of the people. The minority utilization of the filibuster to block nominations throws a grave mark upon the governmental process. Politicians are long-toothed, they will remember this action by the minority, and I believe that in the future, if the current majority should become the minority, they would continue this tradition. I also believe that if the current minority should win the Executive branch with the current majority still in power in the legislative, that his nominees would be hard pressed to clear the committees and make it to the floor, or if made to the floor would lose on an up and down vote. You reap what you sew.


dmk

I think getting rid of the filibuster could be incredibly dangerous. There is a reason our forefathers enacted it to begin with. It's a part of our system of checks and balances. I'm affraid that without it, things may become too unbalanced, especially in a congress with a compisition like the one we currently have.

Besides, oneday when I am a Senator, I look forward to reading from Penthouse Letters as my filibuster...

But at what point do we require the Senators to do their jobs??? They are granted advice and consent under Article II, that is there only power in nominations. The filibuster is a rule that was enacted by the Congress itself to govern itself, so the Congress is free to change that rule at any time.

By failing to give nominees and yea or nay vote on the floor of the Senate, the Senators are failing in their Constitutional duties, and as such are in true essence violating the very Constitution they are sworn to protect and obey.

dmk

But aside from readings from the bible, or penthouse, the filibuster can also be used to assure that all the facts are voiced and heard.

The filibuster has been around since the founding fathers...however it's the first time it was ever used to prevent judges from getting appointed.

Right, and just because someone found a new way to take advantage of it we should get rid of it? That makes no sense.

One of the Senators talked of modifying how the filibuster works. On the first call for cloture it would require 60 votes, each successive time the call for cloture came the total of votes need would decrease by 3. This would allow for after the fourth call of cloture for 51 votes to succeed.

It protects the minority, giving them the opportunity to filibuster, but it also protects the majority. This current debate over the filibuster and its protection is being subverted.

I agree that filibusters should be allowed and used for the minorities to get the points across and their views heard. However, that is not the case over the judicial nominees.

A minority of senators is blocking the confirmation of these judges based solely on ideology. They don't like these judges because they are conservative and that threatens their social planning. How can anyone in good conscience not feel outraged over this ploy??? At the same time they are denouncing these nominees, they have the outrage to defend the tradition of the filibuster. Yeah right!!!

Conservative presidents appoint conservatve judges, and liberal presidents appoint liberal judges. If the liberals wish to appoint liberal judges, here's a novel idea, trying winning an election. If they wish to block the nomination of judges, again a novel idea, regain control of the Senate. In 2000 it was 50/50, in 2004 it was 51/49, and today it is 55/45. Does anybody see a trend here????? If the liberals and democrats are not careful, they may one day face a Senate in which they are truly a minority, and be powerless to accomplish anything.

dmk

I bet if the Republicans used the filibuster during Clinton's times, the Democrats and the media would be all over the Republicans...ripping the party to shreads.