Filibustering, Majority rule=democracy Options

[madchenallein]

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?

[ikayto]

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.