Goose, Gander, Etc.

Newsweek: Why we should nix the filibuster

You. Cannot. Make. This. Stuff. Up.


  1. First, the left takes control of Congress, then the Presidency, then plans to take the Supreme Court — and now they want to do away with Filibusters…

    Does this remind anybody else of Roosevelt’s “Court-Packing” scheme?

  2. Don’t worry. As soon as they get kicked out of the majority, they will be crying the defense of the filibuster again. They were falling all over themselves to say how necessary it was when they were using it to block Bush’s judicial nominees, among other things.

    The folks who started this country knew very well the threat from the tyranny of the majority. They might not have included the filibuster at the time, but I think they would approve of its existence. Anything that keeps the majority from steamrolling its agenda over everyone else, no matter which party.

    Also, something for the more knowledgeable. The article says that most of the budget reconciliation bills were signed by Republican presidents. Since for the nearly thirty years he cites, twenty of them were with Republican presidents, that’s not so surprising. The real question is how many of those were from a Democratic legislature, signed by a Republican president. That is to say, was it always used as a partisan trick to side step the minority?

    Anyway, as far as I am concerned, the more the legislature is tied up, the better. If we could hook them up to a ball and chain system, it would be even better. Maybe reassign offices every week, that kind of thing.

Comments are closed