Do you think changing the filibuster rules was the right thing to do for our future?

[Freewill]

I don't think the filibuster should exist in the first place.

I thought liberals were all about protecting the minority, guess not.

Only if the members of that group agree with them.
Example, look at how they react to people like Thomas Sowell, Dr. Benjamin Carter, Condee Rice and Justice Clarence Thomas. All prominent black people. All conservatives. All have been vilified and pilloried by the lib media and opposed by democrats. Why? Because libs cannot stand people who think for themselves.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2tLyqfJd54]Key & Peele: Black Republicans - YouTube[/ame]

 

[rightwinger]

Senate needs to go back to a 51 vote majority like it was always intended

 

[Sunshine]

There is a family here who is in the middle of many very political issues. Someone once said of them: They don't care what you think, they just don't want you to say anything. That is how this new breed of dems is. Think what you like, but keep your mouth shut.

 

[CrazedScotsman]

Things are just going to get worse now. I foresee absolutely nothing getting done in the future. If Republicans win the Senate, I see nothing but vote to repeal ObamaCare and vetoes in our future. Of course, there will be bills passed to raise salaries though.

I don't care any more, I really don't care.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

It's a terrible idea. I realize that Dems adn teh Obama Admin want to get the DC circuit appeals court stacked up favorably so Obama Tax doesn't take anymore hits, but in the future this could lead to some serious problems. Even less will get done unless the white house matches the senate majority party. Otherwise NOTHING goes through.

Reid did this for Obama's DC appeals appointments over Obama Tax and nothing more. They will pay dearly for this mistake later. Although that hypocrite Reid wont likely be around to participate in it.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

A complete 180 degree turn by the democrats was done yesterday.

Does anyone really need to go dig up quotations from democrats, about the sanctity of the rights of the minority, when they were blocking Bush 43 nominees?

No. How about just telling us what is different between the use of the filibuster now and the use of it when the Democrats were in the minority? Be honest about this.

How many nominations has Obama made, and how many have been successfully blocked?? Be honest about this.

A LOLberal being honest?

 

[Vox]

No, I do not.

Allowing the mob majority rule is never good for society.

It does not matter who is in the majority.

 

[Vox]

There is a family here who is in the middle of many very political issues. Someone once said of them: They don't care what you think, they just don't want you to say anything. That is how this new breed of dems is. Think what you like, but keep your mouth shut.

It is a classic commie type of breed.

The ones who survived the iron curtain know that in the later decades of it the main rule was - keep whatever you think and believe to yourself and know all the ideological mantras to answer in a "correct" way, when asked.

Same is pertinent for American colleges nowadays - and it is a shame.

 

[rightwinger]

No, I do not.

Allowing the mob majority rule is never good for society.

It does not matter who is in the majority.

That is why we have a court system

republicans hate that too

 

[dcraelin]

This is a very sad day for America. This undermines everything our Founders intended. I don't care about political party or scoring political points. This is a very, very bad thing.

Senate Rule 22 was passed in 1917. This officially began the filibuster as we know....Up until today.

This gets back closer to what Our founders intended. Madison called majority rule the Republican principle.

But what should probably come first is financial restrictions on the lobbyist scum that dominate Washington.

 

[Jughead]

No, I do not.

Allowing the mob majority rule is never good for society.

It does not matter who is in the majority.

Absolutely agree. This is awful. This will open the door to possible appointments of unqualified candidates. No matter if they are unqualified though, what matters is that they represent the far left. Democrats will be riding roughshod over the nomination process. No one will be able to stop these appointments.

 

[Katzndogz]

Will democrats think this change is good when they are in the minority? After all when they were in the minority they sure squealed like stuck pigs when republicans were going to make that change.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The liberals wqill support this change until the GOP takes back the senate.
Then they will whine and cry and complain and blame GWB.

 

[dcraelin]

the way we should appoint judges is something along the lines of the way it was done in the AOC (Articles of Confederation, which was Our federal union before Constitution) In that, the founders came up with a way to choose judges partially by lot, the pool of which came from choices from all Senators I believe. This would be a fairer, less political way to choose judges and I think would result in better decisions. Also a mandatory retirement should also be imposed.

 

[Kosh]

This whole things is about the far left getting their way. They could care less about their constituents or the We the people. The only thing the far left wants is the people subjugated under them and they be on the only ruling party.

Anyone still supporting the far left at this point should not be allowed to carry a gun, drive a vehicle, much less use a computer.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Tell us whether you agree or disagree, in principle, with this quote:

"If we cannot get qualified, constitutionalist judges confirmed with a conservative president in the White House and 55 Republicans in the Senate, then what’s the point? Why bother working hard to elect Republicans?"

It's from an article in the conservative 'Human Events' magazine.

Filibuster Fight a Crucial Test of Frist's Leadership | Human Events

 

[NYcarbineer]

Tell us whether you agree or disagree, in principle, with this quote:

"If we cannot get qualified, constitutionalist judges confirmed with a conservative president in the White House and 55 Republicans in the Senate, then what’s the point? Why bother working hard to elect Republicans?"

It's from an article in the conservative 'Human Events' magazine.

Filibuster Fight a Crucial Test of Frist's Leadership | Human Events

Comon now, conservatives...are you trying to let this thread die because you're too cowardly or dishonest to answer my question above?