Filibusters: Whose Rule, and Whose to Change?

[mburbank]

Kevin, you are Mr. Informative! Thanks.

The majority always bitches about fillibusters and how unfair they are, forgetting they used them last time they were the minrity, and the minority always uses them forgetting just how recently they birched about their unfairness.

I thought Republican fillibusters were fair game during the Clinton administration and I think they're fair game now. They're one of the few advantages the minority party has.

The reason I like them is summed up in the article.
"Also, defenders say, the prospect of a filibuster promotes centrist legislation -- and centrist judicial appointments -- since the more moderate the proposal, the less likely it is to provoke a filibuster."

I find the argument that THESE fillibusters are more aggregious than legislative fillibusters because, hey, these are the Presidents appointees, not just some inter congressional mattter, not only wrong, but ass bbackwards. I'm a checks and balances guy. I think the congress SHOULD make things hard for the President, I think the President should try to make congress do wjhat he wants, I think the opposition parties should oppose each other and the Judicial branch should lord it over the others whenever possible. Sometimes I hate the outcome and everybody says they hate the 'gridlock' (but only when it's gridlocking what they want) but that's what seperation of powers and the arcane laws of parliamentary procedure are all about. Everybody watches everybody else and piling up power is really, really hard. Hell, I was pissed off when Republicans wouldn't let shit out of commitee to be voted on, but that's how it works.

Remember Jimmy Stewarts Fillibuster in "Mr. Smith..."? Okay then.