Quote:
Originally Posted by stevo
They are no more wrong to end the ability to filibuster judicial nominees than they are to use those same rules to allow the filibuster of judicial nominees.
Different leaves on the same branch.
|
You're still doing it - claiming that because they CAN make/change rules, all rules and all rule changes are acceptable and equivalent.
No, they are not. It is being argued in this thread that there are benefits to the filibuster. For you to simply state that one rule is equivalent to another means absolutely nothing in the context of the discussion.
It's not a question of whether they are "right" or "wrong" to change rules in general (the answer to that is in the Constitution you quoted: they have the right to change rules) - it is a question of whether they are right are wrong to change this particular rule. And as long as you attempt to defend the criticism of their intent to do so with your (accurate but irrelevent) claim that they have the right to change the rule, you're going to continue to demonstrate absolutely nothing.