« Reid Gets to 60 | Main | The Least Popular Reform in U.S. History »

Tuesday, December 22, 2009



Isn't filibuster just another word for obstructionism? If so, am I to understand that obstructionist Daschle was a bad Senator but obstructionist Thune is a good Senator?


Corry: yes, if one has a majority in the Senate. Republicans threatened to change Senate rules to disallow filibusters on nominations back when the Senate Majority was red. I think it would have been a mistake, and thankfully they didn't do so.

I do think that filibustering judicial nominations is more problematic than filibustering a bill. If both parties threaten to filibuster a nominee who does not pass some litmus test, then the nomination process could well grind to a halt. I think the filibuster of nominations should be reserved for very extreme cases.

In the case of a filibuster against a bill, there is always the prospect of modifying the bill to meet objections.

But your general point is right: Republicans can be just as irresponsible as Democrats on this matter.

Merry Christmas,


Congress passes laws but no one enforces them equally. Income tax laws, contract law, id theft laws, no account check laws only apply to honest people. The new health reform bill will only apply to honest people and people that want to comply with the law but due to lack of money/power. Crooks will just thumb their noses and laugh at the fools that comply with the law. The sheriff's report says it all and why is there no prosecution for id theft, income tax evasion, no account checks, fake social security numbers among the multitude of crimes?
Laws? Don't need no stinking laws.

Let's not forget the Judicial Qualifications Commission, who covers up crimes by Judges.

The comments to this entry are closed.