I don't know enough about Senate rules, but this article (link via WorldNetDaily) has shed new light on how I see the filibuster issue. The author claims that the Democrats can keep the filibuster going with one Democrat Senator present, while Republicans would have to have at least fifty of theirs there to protect their side. I wonder about this, is this right? It makes it sound so easy to filibuster anything. This filibuster is definitely corrupting the process of judicial nominations. I hope the Democrats pay dearly for this. It is time to start enforcing the Constitutional rule about there being no religious test for any government office, and hammering the point home with the voters how people who have "deeply-held religious beliefs" are being barred from serving in government.
The author claims that the Democrats can keep the filibuster going with one Democrat Senator present, while Republicans would have to have at least fifty of theirs there to protect their side.
I just watched Jimmy Stewart in Mr Smith Goes to Washington in which he plays a senator battling the forces of corruption in Washington. Stewart's character is forced to filibuster against his expulsion from the Senate on trumped-up charges. There is a scene when the rest of the senators walk out, leaving him filibustering alone with just the president of the Senate present.
The point is that what the WND author describes is accurate. The Repub's failing is that they would allow a modified filibuster which allows everyone to go home at the end of the day and begin afresh the next day. I think Stewart's character had to keep speaking (and standing) without stop. When he stopped speaking or sat down or passed out it was over. The Repubs are playing too nice.
Posted by: King's Kid at September 24, 2003 10:49 AMHmm. Looks like blockquotes and italics don't work here. What gives?
Posted by: King's Kid at September 24, 2003 10:51 AMTesting...
How's this?
I've modified to config files to allow HTML in comments.
Thanks for the comments!