Can Someone Explain the Filibuster?

Filibusters are typically used when you have a majority party that will not negotiate and is typically adversarial to the minority party. Is ensures that the voice of the minority is taken into account. It is a product of a Republic. In a Democracy this would not exist which is why you don't want a Democracy.

Having a filibuster is a good thing. When used, it is even better.

Quote from Dr. J : I can't see a practical justification for this to be acceptable - I mean, it's sole purpose is to use procedure to block something from happening - to prevent a vote.

You do not understand a Republic. This is not only an important procedure, it is CRITICAL to the success of the state. You don't even want to consider where we'd be without it.

Quote from dealgate : Filibusters are typically used when you have a majority party that will not negotiate and is typically adversarial to the minority party. Is ensures that the voice of the minority is taken into account. It is a product of a Republic. In a Democracy this would not exist which is why you don't want a Democracy. .

Except in this case the minority party won't negotiate and just wants to do nothing.

Quote from dealgate : Filibusters are typically used when you have a majority party that will not negotiate and is typically adversarial to the minority party. Is ensures that the voice of the minority is taken into account. It is a product of a Republic. In a Democracy this would not exist which is why you don't want a Democracy. Having a filibuster is a good thing. When used, it is even better. You do not understand a Republic. This is not only an important procedure, it is CRITICAL to the success of the state. You don't even want to consider where we'd be without it.

Yet it is not in the Constitution.

Hmm...

This filibuster is a good thing IMO. The more energy the Dems (and Republicans) must put into mundane stuff like nominations, the less they can spend stealing our money and ruining our country.

Divided government is good.

Gridlock is Good.

Quote from roughnready : Not to take anything away from them, but commerce secretary and interior secretary isn't even in the same ballpark as secretary of defense.

Maybe in your own mind but filibustering a cabinet level position is not new, the door was opened by Democrats.

Quote from ASG : Except in this case the minority party won't negotiate and just wants to do nothing.

I can see that you still don't understand at all why the filibuster is important. You completely missed the point.

Quote from darkfrog : Maybe in your own mind but filibustering a cabinet level position is not new, the door was opened by Democrats.

But doing this to elicit more information from the White House on a completely unrelated issue? In this case it's Benghazi. They've also thrown the nominee for CIA director into the mix as part of the obstruction. This country can run for a long time without a commerce secretary or interior secretary. But the U.S. secretary of defense is arguably the third or fourth most powerful person in the world.

Quote from roughnready : But doing this to elicit more information from the White House on a completely unrelated issue? In this case it's Benghazi. They've also thrown the nominee for CIA director into the mix as part of the obstruction. This country can run for a long time without a commerce secretary or interior secretary. But the U.S. secretary of defense is arguably the third or fourth most powerful person in the world.

Whatever. Who cares. I hope the Pubs filibuster them forever if the administration wants to continue to hide and lie about Benghazi. They have no other tool to get the truth.

Quote from roughnready : But doing this to elicit more information from the White House on a completely unrelated issue? In this case it's Benghazi. They've also thrown the nominee for CIA director into the mix as part of the obstruction. This country can run for a long time without a commerce secretary or interior secretary. But the U.S. secretary of defense is arguably the third or fourth most powerful person in the world.

The country already has a defense secretary. But continue playing fast and loose with the facts.

Quote from darkfrog : Maybe in your own mind but filibustering a cabinet level position is not new, the door was opened by Democrats.

Yes, Ted Kennedy made an attempt to filibuster John Ashcroft 12 years ago.

Quote from Krazen1211 : The country already has a defense secretary. But continue playing fast and loose with the facts.

The post was in reference to the importance of the defense secretary as discussed earlier in the thread.

Quote from roughnready : The post was in reference to the importance of the defense secretary as discussed earlier in the thread.

The following sentence does not make logical sense unless you're trying to pretend the nation doesn't have a defense secretary, after you pretended that a cabinet filibuster was never done before.

This country can run for a long time without a commerce secretary or interior secretary.


Of course, the country isn't running without a defense secretary now and won't be next week, either.

Quote from Krazen1211 : The following sentence does not make logical sense unless you're trying to pretend the nation doesn't have a defense secretary, after you pretended that a cabinet filibuster was never done before. This country can run for a long time without a commerce secretary or interior secretary. Of course, the country isn't running without a defense secretary now and won't be next week, either.

Again, please read the rest of the thread. I did not claim that a cabinet filibuster has never happened.

Quote from dealgate : I can see that you still don't understand at all why the filibuster is important. You completely missed the point.

You're right, I do miss the point. What is there to negotiate in this instance?