Quote:
Originally Posted by stevo
If people want to argue that it is senate rules to allow for a filibuster, well the same senate and the same set of rules allow for the "nuclear" option to be implemented.
|
Wow. The context just got switched around QUICK.
It seemed to me that the original argument is that senate rules should not allow for a filibuster. That was your argument. To which people have responded to your argument by stating that senate rules should allow a filibuster (as they do). And now your argument is that because someone has argued in defense of an action supported by rules, another set of rules that allow the attack of said action should negate the argument that said action should be defended?
Doesn't work that way.
Quote:
If the republicans are able to change senate rules to end the filibustering of judicail nominees they will be doing it by the same rules the democrats use to filibuster the nominees.
|
Yeah ... and what exactly do you think that proves? It most certainly doesn't demonstrate any compelling reason that the senate SHOULD end the ability to filibuster - so you're effectively saying that the senate can create it's own rules, therefore any rule it feels like creating is defacto appropriate. Nonsense.
I don't believe anyone has denied that the senate CAN end filibustering if it so chooses. So why you would make a point of the apparent fact that they can is inexplicable. Except in so far as you mistakenly attempt to use that point to discredit the defense of filibustering.