Amazon.com Widgets

Filibusters in judicial nominations: Should filibusters be banned in cases of judicial nominations?

  • Filibusters should be banned in general

    They're never used in the interest of amending or resolving anything, filibusters these days are only used to give the opposing party the finger and say "I'm going to delay this as long as I can for no reason other than I feel like it." They're not heroic. Rand Paul is not a pioneer of rights, he's an idiot. Filibusters achieve nothing but pushing the two parties further apart.

  • Filibusters are necessary

    Rand Paul is a perfect example. That man stood for hours upon hours for the benefit of Americans. He truly cares about our country and our rights and has proven that he's willing to undergo extreme discomfort to bring awareness to what the Democraps are trying to do to us.

  • No, filibusters should not be banned in judicial nominations.

    The filibuster is a powerful and dramatic tool when it is used as intended. It is a last-ditch effort to prevent nominations or passage of legislation, and it should absolutely be kept as a tool of last resort. Many of us are familiar with "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," a movie in which James Stewart's character famously speaks for 24 hours straight on the floor of the Senate. This is the filibuster we know and expect. It is a way for the minority voice to be heard, and should not be done away with when used in this fashion.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.