Dick Durbin should be arrested for impersonating a U.S. senator. His latest violation is to ask supporters to sign up for filibuster reform!!
The American people are sick of process blocking progress. They’re fed up with an arbitrary tradition that allows a minority of Senators to prevent popular, much- needed legislation from even coming to a vote. Frankly, so am I.
I love the “frankly.” It means he’s levelling with us.
When our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution and drafted the initial rules of the Senate, they never intended requiring a supermajority to pass any and all legislation. They just wanted to be sure that Senators took time to carefully debate and consider bills before taking votes. That’s why I urge you to support the Harkin-Shaheen proposal, or similar filibuster reform proposals.
Such devotion to the founders. When is the nuclear option a reform? When Dems have trouble getting what they want.
Blithe Spirit 
The Nuclear Option is using the filibuster to block votes on judicial nominees. What does that have to do with health care reform?
LikeLike
As used, nuclear o. is way to bust a filibuster, to advance any bill. It’s a.k.a. budget reconciliation, currently called reconciliation w/o budget. Sen. Byrd devised it long ago as way to pass a budget (keep govt running, etc.) and objected to Clinton’s using it, in fact persuaded him not to.
I’d say I was being ironic with my “nuclear reform” but what do I know? It is surely laughable to call it filibuster reform, as Durbin does. Hell, he just wants a health care bill such as Obama et al. is trying to get passed. Sorry if I was obscurantist about it.
LikeLike
Actually the Term Nuclear Option is up for debate.Not sure where you get you
or
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2005/05/25/the_senate_steps_back?mode=PF
or if you prefer fox news
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,144535,00.html
Fact of the matter is, whichever side is in the minority likes to use the term to make things sound scary.
Since the filibuster didn’t come about until the 1900’s I have to agree that our Founding Fathers never intended needing a super majority to pass legislation.
LikeLike
Geez, is that what you’re after? If I’d never thrown in “nuclear,” you wouldn’t have commented? Come on.
LikeLike