Published: Wednesday, March 13 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT
Professor Davis is correct in all respects contained in this article. I
absolutely agree. if a Senator wants to fillibuster, s/he should be forced to
stay in the Senate room, stand up, and TALK.
I disagree with Paul's (stated) objective entirely, but do give him kudos
for doing it properly. This editorial is absolutely correct about
the need for filibuster reform and offers a great plan for it.
Once again Richard nailed it. Thanks for the common sense. It is so rare
Rand Pauls tantrum lasted longer than it took the senate, the very next day to
confirm the person he was fillibustering. Just another waste of time from the
Normally a fillibuster is not conducted by one guy playing James Stewart. The
reason fillibusters work is because if necessary, 10, 20 or even 30 Senators
could trade off time on the floor and legally (according to Senate rules) hold
up any other work. In the House of Representatives the minority has virtually
no power. It is one party rule there. In the Senate the minority does have
some power, what with 60 votes needed often, and the fillibuster. Iam a
Republican, and have been frusturated in the past by Democrats using the
fillibuster, but I'd never want our government to be so dominated by one
party that the minority party had no power. So for me, long live the
fillibuster until something better comes along.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments