tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7573723.post111056230396449192..comments2023-12-26T16:31:42.296-05:00Comments on Watching Washington: Senate Roadblock to Social Security AccountsTexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12150814603229352775noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7573723.post-1110832429965354372005-03-14T15:33:00.000-05:002005-03-14T15:33:00.000-05:00So you don't seem to have a problem utlizing the f...So you don't seem to have a problem utlizing the filibuster. Which, in essence, undermines and changes the constituiton pertaining to the number of votes required to pass certain items like SS reform or judicial nominations.<BR/><BR/>For example, it takes 51 votes to affirm a jusdicial nomination. Under a filibuster, it would take 60 votes to affirm that same nomination. (It is 60 since Robert Byrd changed the Senate rules before for breaking a filibuster and lowered the number from 67 to 60.)<BR/><BR/>It seems to me, the filibuster had specific reasons to be used, blocking normal legislation and judicial nominations were not some of them.<BR/><BR/>The Senate should do a Robert Byrd and lower the votes needed to break a filibuster to 51, then we can get back to the constituionality of business.totalkaosdavehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16746381177259825113noreply@blogger.com