Landmark Senate Vote Limits Filibusters

Re:Landmark Senate Vote Limits Filibusters by protomyth on Thursday November 21, 2013 @02:52PM (#6776998)

Given Sen Reid's defense of the filibuster and opposition to a rules change in 2005, we basically see that this isn't for the good of the country, it is basic, bad politics.

The Senate is not supposed to be efficient and the minority party needs to have a say. It is that simple. People pointing out the good old days, don't actually remember them.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Landmark Senate Vote Limits Filibusters by ap22213 on Thursday November 21, 2013 @02:57PM (#6777042)

Given the fact that Reid had voiced such opposition, and since they waited so long to do it emphasizes the significance of the act. They really didn't want to do it, but they really had no other choice.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Landmark Senate Vote Limits Filibusters by protomyth on Thursday November 21, 2013 @03:06PM (#6777102)

"They really didn't want to do it, but they really had no other choice."[1]

Yes, he had a choice. Leave it the same as the other party did in 2005 and stop trying to be a modern day Senate version of Thomas Brackett Reed. The amount of debates that Reid has closed down has been amazing.

The other party will get into power at some point and then Reid will regret this foolishness and so will we.

1) might as well say "The end will justify the means"

[ Parent | on HN ]