Quote:
|
Originally Posted by alansmithee
They didn't want to eliminate the filibuster entirely, just it's use in the case of judicial nominees.
Although it does seem to imply that if you can limit it in that case, you could limit it in others.
|
There is the interesting slippery slope. Once you have elliminated it's use in one part of the senate, there is little ability to agrue against elliminating it from other situations.
It's would be just as easy for me to say "Each bill deserves a fair up or down vote" on the Senate floor, so lets eliminate the filibuster from preventing this up or down vote!
Changing the rules to serve the agenda of any argument forgets why those rules where created in the first place, which was often with great care and thought as to their effect in the long term.
I worry if this agreement will hold when/if it comes time to vote on a SCOTUS judge.
The way I read the agreement, the Dem's have agreed not to filibuster anyone broadly perceived as moderate. The problem there is the difference in what moderate is between the two current party's (And I think we need to remember that they are only the two current party's, as they have not always existed, and will not always exist.)
I worry even more that our bicameral legislature is quickly becoming devoid of moderates, or even those that vote based on their constituatncy instead of a current party line.