Pros And Cons Of Filibuster

The filibuster continues to be an area of controversy in the United States Senate. Critics of the rule claim that it has corrupted and even broken the institution, while proponents claim that the rule is a savior for the minority against unpopular laws instituted by the majority. Throughout history, the filibuster has shown its potentially dangerous side as well as its positive benefits. After any major party shift in the Senate, it seems that there is always talk of filibuster reform by the new majority. Although reform debates persist, rules and procedures regarding the filibuster have yet to be significantly changed since 1975, when the cloture rule was last amended. The debate has been revived

Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) eliminated filbusters for most executive branch nominations, a maneuver known as the “nuclear option,” which drew widespread criticism from Republicans.

As most American’s know as well as Gohmert, that it is not just the presidency as stake this election. With one seat already waiting to be filled on the Supreme Court, and others possibly being vacated shortly, the balance of the highest court in America, the one the governs us all, hangs in the balance as well. The people picked to fill these seats will have a tremendous affect on the trajectory of our future as a country.

Our source in the White House indicates Obama will nominate Judge Faith Jenkins to the Supreme Court replacing Associate Justice Antonin Scalia who died February 13, 2016.

Preeminent Court chosen one Merrick Garland is unrealistic to be affirmed by the Senate at any point in the near future, and as his designation turns windlessly before the Republican-drove chamber some medication strategy change backers and criminal resistance lawyers are breathing a peaceful murmur of help.

For example, Senator Leahy rejected the rule in the closing months of the Democratic Clinton administration,[3] but later invoked the rule in the last months of the Republican Bush administration as noted above. In March 2008, Leahy wrote a letter to Bush stating “I urge you to work with senators from other states, as well, so that we might make progress before time runs out on your presidency and the Thurmond rule precludes additional confirmations. ”[2] In June 2012, however, Leahy said "it is troubling to hear Senate Republicans already talking about how they plan to resort to the Thurmond Rule to shut down all judicial confirmations for the rest of the year."[4] In 2004, Republican Senator Orrin Hatch dismissed the rule: "Strom Thurmond unilaterally on his own ... when he was chairman could say whatever he wanted to, but that didn't bind the whole committee, and it doesn't bind me."[5

The filibuster rule is indisputably constitutional in the U.S. Citing from Article I, Section five of the Constitution: “Individual houses may ascertain the rule of its house proceedings.” In addition, from the formation of the nation, the Senate was planned to be a more premeditated body. Through James Madison Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention, he stated that, “for one to assess the form to be handed to the Senate, it is appropriate to take an analysis of the both ends going to be served. First the rule safeguards the public against their leaders: secondly it safeguards the public against the transitory imprints into which they might be led into.” This is the reason why the four hundred and thirty five Members of the House excluding one-third of the Senate are facing election in every 2 years.

In their article entitled “Supreme Court nominee Gorsuch says Trump’s attacks on judiciary are “demoralizing,” (Phillip, Barnes and O'Keefe) national political reporter for The Washington Post, Abby Phillip; editor and reporter for The Washington Post Robert Barnes; and congressional reporter for The Washington Post Ed O’Keefe, citing a statement given by Senator Richard Blumenthal, Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch indicated that he felt President Trump’s attacks on the federal judiciary were “’disheartening’ and ‘demoralizing’ to the independence of the federal courts.”

The recent use of the filibuster compares to how it was used in the past in a different way, back then a person could talk for hours but in today's age senators take turns on the floor. In the future a filibuster could be used in order to protect the minority because there has been times the democrats use the filibuster to block legislation backed by the minority party. Although the use of the filibuster could promote public ridicule.

When the Justice revealed her severe bias against the GOP nominee, she created a contentious situation for her future rulings, provided that Mr. Trump wins the coming election. How so? Well, according to Section 28 US, Code 455, “Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” The law continues, stating, “Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party.” But here’s the kicker; the final arbiter on recusal from a case is the judge themself. It’s a personal call, and unsurprisingly, it gets overlooked

Another item that is mentioned is that there has to be 60 votes to end a filibuster but there may not be 60 senators present at the time of voting to end it. For instance there doesn’t have to be 60 senators present to vote on a bill or law so there may not be enough to end the filibuster. This throws in another complicated deal and makes ending a filibuster even harder.

Nice read but I can't say I agree with most of this. Especially point #3. McConnell's obstructionist strategy is borderline treasonous, so suggesting Democrats use the same approach is no better. Also, calling out the left for a condescending, elitist approach and losing our base, followed by suggesting we have a deep bench in Warren and others seem contradictory.

On Tuesday March 21, Judge Neil Gorsuch's Supreme Court confirmation hearing took place. When asked about Citizens United, Gorsuch replied comically and also stated "approach the law as you find it." In addition, he was asked on his viewpoint on Gideon v. Wainright. He responded by saying that "disliking or liking the precedent is not his job" and "precedents deserve respect and has to be analyzed under the law of precedent." When asked about Roe v. Wade he explained that it is his responsibility to respect the precedent even if he does not agree with that precedent. His strongest disapproval of the president came when asked about Trump's attacks on the Judiciary. He called criticism of the judiciary "disheartening" and "demoralizing."

A filibuster is a unique tool used in legislation that obstructs the progress of a bill. This obstruction of progress can be conducted in a variety of ways, such as “talking a bill to death”, or delaying long enough to completely prevent a vote on a bill. Filibustering can be accomplished by one, or several members of the Senate. In recent years, the act of filibustering has become increasingly unpopular amongst the public due to the delay it causes on bill progress in the US Supreme Court, but its initial purpose came from a more helpful standpoint. The embryonic concept of the filibuster was created to guarantee that all opinions were heard completely regardless of their popularity before a bill was voted on. This

This implies that the senate confirmation process is based on not only merit but also ideological extremity. Senators are more likely to cast no votes if the candidate