Re: Myers withdraws
- From: bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Bob Rahe)
- Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 19:35:54 +0000 (UTC)
In article <3sfdjfFnrsigU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
The Other Kim <mjg@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Actually, if you want to get technical, what the Democrats were
>proposing wasn't a filibuster. The last real filibuster was by Strom
>Thurmond back in the debate over the Civil Rights Act, when he held the
>floor talking for over 24 hours. What the Democrats were doing was not
>allowing cloture, which is not exactly the same.
Well, true, they've 'evolved' to having a 'virtual' fillibuster... So
they don't actually have to talk(!). Same effect tho.
But this is also different in another way. The fact of a fillibuster
is the minority forcing effectively a 'super majority'. I.e after the
normal functioning of the judiciary committee, be that hearings, no
hearings, recommendations for or against but sending to the Senate etc.
etc. The minority blocks the nominee - who may very well have been
given a recommendation by the J.Comm. as well as be 'well qualified'
by the ABA. It is pure politics and it has not been done before by
either Republicans or Democrats....
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------_------
|Bob Rahe, MIEEE, bob@xxxxxxxx (RWR50) / ASCII ribbon campaign ( ) |
|Delaware Technical & Community College / - against HTML email X |
|Computer Center, Dover, Delaware / & vCards / \ |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Greetings from S. Florida
- Next by Date: Re: OT: fierce dog
- Previous by thread: Re: Greetings from S. Florida
- Next by thread: Re: OT: fierce dog
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|