Here's my compromise regarding the filibuster situation

[CTLawGuy]

The Democrats will agree to allow the repugs to get rid of the filibuster in regards to nominees, if

the repugs agree to change the rules so that all nominees must be approved by a 2/3 majority.

[Blue_In_AK]

1. That's a compromise I can get behind. LOL. n/t

[Brianboru]

2. Failed math, huh? 60 votes to end filibuster, 67 to approve.

[CTLawGuy]

4. I'm hoping THEY failed math

but I might whittle it down to 60 votes to approve, if they look serious about taking the compromise.

[Brianboru]

9. I haven't stopped laughing since I read your post.

Unfortunately, they are not that stupid.

Great post

[CTLawGuy]

10. well, they get their "up or down vote" don't they?

whats the problem? :shrug:

:)

[Brianboru]

15. One of us is confused.

Current rules - 60 votes would end the filibuster, and then they would get the vote. They could get approval with 60 votes.

Your compromise would require 67 votes to confirm.

This isn't much of a compromise. It requires 7 more votes to get an approval.

Why would anyone agree to this?

[CTLawGuy]

16. they wouldn't...

in public the pugs crow about how "all nominees deserve an up or down vote...", but what they really want is to ram anyone down our throats with a partisan majority.

This compromise gives them what they publicly say they want... an up or down vote, but it takes away their ability to ram wackos down our throat.

the problem is how do they explain why they would object to a life appointed person being confirmed to an "independent" branch of government on more than a bare majority.

Ask yourself why they are not saying "we deserve to put conservative judges on the court who are distasteful to half the population"

[lala_rawraw]

3. No, the Dems shut down everything

Because the state of things is that:

1). laws are being passed that no one has read because they are attached in the middle of the night
2). money is being allocated to programs that were voted on but not read (see above)
3). so far the bill of rights and civil liberties have gone down the toilet thanks to the above

So what is the point of paying to keep Congress working if they are going to create negligible legislation?

[CTLawGuy]

5. huh

what are you trying to say? are you saying you don't like my compromise? I'm confused by your post.

[rhett o rick]

7. I think he is saying "STOP COMPROMISING"

[CTLawGuy]

8. well, my compromise is not really a compromise

it only looks like a compromise because it gives the Repugs their "up and down vote" they so ostensibly care about, but it takes away their ability to ram crazy judges through on party line votes (which is what they REALLY care about).

It gives them what they SAY they want, without giving them what they REALLY want.

having a 2/3 majority rule ensures only non-controversial nominees make it through.

[tx_dem41]

12. Sigh....do the math on the "compromise".

Life isn't serious all the time. Neither is every post.

[lala_rawraw]

17. i know... i am just screaming because i am just screaming

lmao... sorry... just pissed... we do need to lighten up:)

[rhett o rick]

6. You hit the nail on the head. Congress is now meaningless.

George said it himself: A dictatorship is more efficient. (or similar words). If the Congressional Demo's aren't willing to go to the wall, then what good are they. They didn't keep use out of the War. They haven't gotten us out. They don't even have a plan as far as i can tell. What good are they doing. Their presence gives the appearance of a working democracy. I know there are exceptions. Conyers, Kennedy, Boxer, Reid, and Galloway. Boxer/Conyers in 2008.

[warrens]

11. Here's my compromise

They drop the nuclear option, we don't boil them in oil

[CTLawGuy]

13. haha

yeeehaw!

[CTLawGuy]

14. haha

yeeehaw!