Skip to main content

View Diary: Can You Help Me End the Filibuster? (249 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  so you're a Monarchist? (0+ / 0-)

    what are you doing at DailyKos?

    •  Huh? That's ridiculous. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      The founders of this country didn't intend for it to be a democracy; they intended for there to be several obstacles between the will of the people and the laws of the land. That doesn't mean they were monarchists; in fact, they were pretty much the opposite.

      There are good reasons sometimes for thwarting the will of the majority. If you'd asked the majority in 1967 whether interracial marriage should be legal, they'd have pretty overwhelmingly said "no." And yet the Supreme Court bucked the will of the majority. Were they wrong to do so?

      Call Congress and demand 2 Senators, 1 VOTING Rep, and full home rule for DC citizens. Anything less is un-American.

      by mistersite on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 07:39:54 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  the checks and balances (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        in the Constitution do not include a filibuster.

        •  Im trying to be polite (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mistersite, PapaNelly, Kerosene

          but it's pretty clear you don't understand the Constitution, or our system of government very well on this issue.

          The main two arguments so far have been:

          a. the filibuster is undemocratic
          b. the Constitution doesn't expressly allow a filibuster

          The problems with those two arguments are:

          a. the Constitution expressly provides for several things that are explicitly unDemocratic including the entire setup of our government as a republic so arguing that the filibuster is undemocratic is not by itself persusasive

          b. the Constitution expressly allows each House of Congress to make their own rules. Arguably the filibuster is one of those rules. It is a procedural rule on debate.

          And calling me a monarchist? I have no idea where you pulled that from.

        •  No, but they do allow the houses of Congress... (0+ / 0-)

 make their own rules for debate and discussion. The filibuster is constitutional.

          Further, I was responding to your rather hyperbolic and ridiculous response to the parent comment. The above commenter is right in that our government is in many ways designed to be anti-democratic. We don't live in a pure democracy.

          And yet for stating this simple fact, you accuse him/her of being a monarchist and suggest that he/she not be welcome on this site? Completely inappropriate.

          Call Congress and demand 2 Senators, 1 VOTING Rep, and full home rule for DC citizens. Anything less is un-American.

          by mistersite on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 07:48:48 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  There are many degrees of freedom in the (0+ / 0-)
        design of our government. I am all for changing the rules to maximize democracy as long as there is no negative impact on civil liberties.

        The corporate aristocracy has twisted the filibuster into a tool to thwart the progressive majority in this country. Good riddance!

        How did the stones vote this time? They voted for hardness and few words. And the men? They voted against themselves and for fire which they could not control.

        by lightfoot on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 10:00:30 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  wow, nice straw man (0+ / 0-)

      that may be the most breath takingly disingenous misrepresentation I've seen in a while.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (141)
  • Community (68)
  • Baltimore (64)
  • Bernie Sanders (49)
  • Freddie Gray (38)
  • Civil Rights (36)
  • Hillary Clinton (26)
  • Elections (25)
  • Racism (23)
  • Culture (22)
  • Education (20)
  • Labor (20)
  • Law (19)
  • Media (19)
  • Rescued (17)
  • Economy (17)
  • Science (15)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Politics (15)
  • Texas (13)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site