Republican senators are laying the groundwork to vote before Christmas on a Democratic-drafted resolution to circumvent the blockade that Alabama Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R) has placed in front of mo…
My personal opinion is that single person protests should not affect the function of the Senate.
Otherwise, you can have one senator who protests something that literally nobody else agrees with. Like, if instead of military paying for travel expenses for abortions, he was protesting that military people are allowed to wear pants, we’d still have the same problem.
So you say that some people are praised for doing this but it depends on the issue? It’s ridiculous. If it’s such an important issue, then there should be more support. Make it so that the same limits apply as for filibuster, for example. That’s the way everything else works. It shouldn’t be just one or two people.
This unanimous consent procedure is the wrong way of doing military promotions. We need to take away this ridiculous power for any Senator to unilaterally hold up promotions.
I disagree. I think the filibuster is an awesome tool, BUT it needs to be real. None of this “just declare it and that’s it” bullshit. If you truly believe something and are willing to stand and talk for it, that’s awesome.
That is absolutely not what a filibuster is. A filibuster is immediately ended when 60 Senators vote to end it. So a filibuster requires 2/5 of the Senate to choose not to stop it.
If the military promotions had the same standard, all of these promotions would already have been granted.
Single person protests should be an option, but as I said, without more support in the Senate, a single person protest shouldn’t affect the functioning of the Senate as a whole.
A filibuster is a political procedure in which one or more members of a legislative body prolong debate on proposed legislation so as to delay or entirely prevent a decision.
I am the one who brought up the term filibuster, and I was clearly specifically talking about the version we have in the US Senate, which works as I stated. A single senator cannot continue to filibuster if a cloture vote passes with 60 votes. I use the term “filibuster” because that is what it is called. It is called “filibuster” even if that is somehow not correct according to whatever other definition you find for the term. Any other version of filibuster would be off-topic.
I hope that this clears up any misunderstanding. If there was no misunderstanding, and your point was simple pedantry, you’ll discover to your dismay that I’m well-versed in arguing pedantics.
My personal opinion is that single person protests should not affect the function of the Senate.
Otherwise, you can have one senator who protests something that literally nobody else agrees with. Like, if instead of military paying for travel expenses for abortions, he was protesting that military people are allowed to wear pants, we’d still have the same problem.
So you say that some people are praised for doing this but it depends on the issue? It’s ridiculous. If it’s such an important issue, then there should be more support. Make it so that the same limits apply as for filibuster, for example. That’s the way everything else works. It shouldn’t be just one or two people.
This unanimous consent procedure is the wrong way of doing military promotions. We need to take away this ridiculous power for any Senator to unilaterally hold up promotions.
I disagree. I think the filibuster is an awesome tool, BUT it needs to be real. None of this “just declare it and that’s it” bullshit. If you truly believe something and are willing to stand and talk for it, that’s awesome.
I didn’t say that I thought the filibuster was good.
That’s what a filibuster is. I disagree with you, single person protests should be an option.
That is absolutely not what a filibuster is. A filibuster is immediately ended when 60 Senators vote to end it. So a filibuster requires 2/5 of the Senate to choose not to stop it.
If the military promotions had the same standard, all of these promotions would already have been granted.
Single person protests should be an option, but as I said, without more support in the Senate, a single person protest shouldn’t affect the functioning of the Senate as a whole.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster
I’m using the word as defined
I am the one who brought up the term filibuster, and I was clearly specifically talking about the version we have in the US Senate, which works as I stated. A single senator cannot continue to filibuster if a cloture vote passes with 60 votes. I use the term “filibuster” because that is what it is called. It is called “filibuster” even if that is somehow not correct according to whatever other definition you find for the term. Any other version of filibuster would be off-topic.
I hope that this clears up any misunderstanding. If there was no misunderstanding, and your point was simple pedantry, you’ll discover to your dismay that I’m well-versed in arguing pedantics.