Loc: Alexandria, VA
Well, I think we've had a couple threads here regarding the filibuster as it currently stands, and Rachel had a spot on this just a day or two ago.
In a nutshell: The filibuster was meant to be a risky, physically- and mentally-demanding, time-limited form of delaying legislation on the Senate floor.
Somehow* it has metastasized into a simple, consequence-free absolute veto power for the minority that can be used with impunity. Needless to say, this is a power never intended for the minority and imho is arguably unconstitutional.
So obviously I'm all for restoring the filibuster to the demanding and limited tactic it used to be.
* I still don't grok when and where this change happened, exactly. Up until this Congress I had assumed the filibuster to be in its former state and had been blaming the majority for simply caving at the threat of one. Apparently it's a hard-coded change, though, so apologies to the majority in this case =P
"In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes needed to invoke cloture to three-fifths (60) of Senate membership. At the same time, they made the filibuster "invisible" by requiring only that 41 Senators state that they intend to filibuster" -- About.com
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.