Personal tools

Argument: Filibuster perverts rules meant to promote debate

From Debatepedia

Revision as of 14:13, 16 July 2009; Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
(diff) ←Older revision | Current revision | Newer revision→ (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Parent debate

Supporting quotations

Ezra Klein. "Debate the filibuster. The filibuster would want it that way." The American Prospect. February 17th, 2009: "The filibuster is a byproduct of the Senate's right to unlimited debate. The idea was that the Senate would be a body of reasoned deliberation. The rule was meant to promote argument, not require super majorities. Indeed, it wasn't until Woodrow Wilson that the Senate could even vote down a senator trying to talk a bill to death. They changed the rules because the right to unlimited debate had changed: It had been transformed from a guardian of democratic deliberation into a tool for undemocratic obstruction. [...] So get rid of the filibuster. Now that the filibuster doesn't even require excess speech, it's come completely unmoored from the right to unlimited debate."

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits