The Nuclear Option, our american filibuster |
Debate Rules
Here are the general forum rules that you must follow before you start any debate topics. Please make sure you've read and followed all directions.
- Topics are not to bash others.
- Immature behaviors/comments will not be tolerated.
- Please remember, not everyone thinks like you. People have different ways of thinking and different perspectives. Let's respect each other's thoughts and responses.
- PLEASE, search before making new topics--especially popular topics like "God" and "Abortion" etc.
- PLEASE, read through the thread or at least a couple pages before posting. We have to maintain a certain level of maturity in here.
 May 13 2005, 10:50 PM
Post
#1
|
|
 dripping destruction  Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 7,282 Joined: Jun 2004 Member No: 21,929  |
Now, here's a little background for those of you who don't know about the nuclear option (or the filibuster).
the dems have 45 seats in the senate, there's one independent who often votes liberal, and 54 gops (grand old party= republican). a filibuster is where you talk something to death. the senate must let everyone speak about an issue before they vote, or they take a vote to close speeches (requries a 60%) now, the dems have been using the filibuster to stop GOP nominations, which the senate must approve. the GOP is angry= they won an election, now they want to be able to put thier judges up, and have thier contributers be made diplomates and embassadors. the nuclear option would get rid of the filibuster. they'd only need a 51% to stop filibusters then, easily gotten with 54 seats. NOW FOR THE PROMPT the nuclear option violates a tradition in the senate, the dems also threaten to stop every single piece of legislation if the nuclear option is employed. so: do you think the nuclear option should be employed? and if you say no, which side should back down/ what should be done? |
|
|
|
Posts in this topic
sadolakced acid The Nuclear Option May 13 2005, 10:50 PM
BrandonSaunders From that brief explanation there and there confus... May 14 2005, 12:11 AM mipadi It's not completely a matter of "the Dems... Jun 2 2005, 09:58 AM CrackedRearView Well, it's nothing new. Post-election hostili... Jun 2 2005, 04:28 PM not_for_anything Not employed, why should they be given the power? ... Jun 9 2005, 01:13 PM
CrackedRearView QUOTE(not_for_anything @ Jun 9 2005, 12:13 PM... Jun 17 2005, 06:06 PM not_your_average The Democrats need to have a say in our laws. If w... Jun 19 2005, 04:18 PM CrackedRearView QUOTE(not_your_average @ Jun 19 2005, 3:18 PM... Jun 19 2005, 09:28 PM sadolakced acid QUOTE(CrackedRearView @ Jun 19 2005, 9:28 PM)... Jun 19 2005, 10:45 PM CrackedRearView Something that struck me as interesting was how dr... Jul 7 2005, 05:36 AM mipadi The legislature shouldn't have the mentality t... Jul 7 2005, 07:31 AM  |
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members: