The Democrats in the Senate were prepared to filibuster in order to prevent a decision on several of Bush's judicial nominees. However, seven Dems and seven Reps got together and hatched this deal, leading both sides, but particularly conservatives, and the CONSTITUTION, to a major loss.

Here's the question: Filibustering has no constitutional support, do you think the fourteen representatives who made the deal made a mistake or accomplished a more important goal?

A few facts and opinions: Especially for you liberals out there-the filibuster prevented civil rights legislation from being adopted for nearly a century; according to http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-16-03.html

Both parties in the Senate had good opportunities to accomplish their own goals with regard to Bush's nominations, according to: http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html, and they both ceded the field; pansies.

So, for those of you of legal voting age as well as those of you who will be ponying up to your patriotic privilege/duty when you reach voting age, what's the verdict people?

this is a bit similar to this topic

I learned about the fillibuster when i visited D.C. a month ago. I thought it was the most childish thing i had ever heard of. Deliberately delaying the opening of a topic by making your speech extremely long just seems so underhanded. I recall that a senator made a fillibuster of over 5 hours or 24horus, i forget- it was just long.

I think we should just get rid of them; underhanded tactics shouldnt be used in our government.

haha, there wouldn't be much happening in our government if we did that.

dont' kill the filibuster!

my goal in life is to become a senator and have a nonstop 48 hour filibuster, reading the complete works of tolkien and rowling aloud.

the filibuster is quite a good thing. if democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner, then the filibuster is what lets the sheep live.