View Single Post
Old 05-18-2005, 07:48 PM  
theking
Nice Kitty
 
theking's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The good old USA!!!
Posts: 21,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFierce
Removing the fillibuster would seriously damage any minority party's ability to block legislation they find particularly objectionable, allowing for simple majority rule voting. The drawbacks are that a simple majority would be able to seize power by the removal of this check and balance procedure, the founding fathers made rules of checks and balances to prevent just this sort of one party domination of the country, by allowing a minor majority party to use their minor majority to rewrite the rules of procedure at any time to suit their own liking willresult in the consolidation of power only to the ruling party and giving the ruling party the ability to write laws and legislation that could then be used to favor only the ruling party. This is very dangerous territory since one party will always have a one vote majority or better in the senate
This is not about removing the fillibuster per se. This is about using the fillibuster against a President's nominees...a singular area of the use of the fillibuster.
__________________
When you're running down my country hoss...you're walking on the fighting side of me!

FOR THE LYING LOWLIFE POSTING AS PATHFINDER...https://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-pr...athfinder.html
theking is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote