May. 17th, 2005

nancylebov: blue moon (Default)
I'm aware of the current filibuster situation in regards to judicial nominees, and the earlier history of filibusters to block civil rights, but what was happening with it in between?

Can anyone recommend some theoretical work about the function of the filibuster? Or is it simply a sort of informal supermajority requirement for matters where there's a strongly opposed minority?
nancylebov: blue moon (Default)
I'm aware of the current filibuster situation in regards to judicial nominees, and the earlier history of filibusters to block civil rights, but what was happening with it in between?

Can anyone recommend some theoretical work about the function of the filibuster? Or is it simply a sort of informal supermajority requirement for matters where there's a strongly opposed minority?
nancylebov: blue moon (Default)
Airlines have been problematic employers for a very long time--I don't think I've heard of so many broken contracts (this is usually describes as re-negotiating with the union) in any other industry.

I realize that it can be very hard to switch lines of work if one is ill-paid or has a lot of obligations, but that's the short term. It doesn't explain why people get training for airline jobs early on when they presumably have more options, and I think airlines have been trouble to work for for decades.

I'm not trying to blame the victims--I'm observing that people are doing something which seems to make very little sense, and I'm curious about why.
nancylebov: blue moon (Default)
Airlines have been problematic employers for a very long time--I don't think I've heard of so many broken contracts (this is usually describes as re-negotiating with the union) in any other industry.

I realize that it can be very hard to switch lines of work if one is ill-paid or has a lot of obligations, but that's the short term. It doesn't explain why people get training for airline jobs early on when they presumably have more options, and I think airlines have been trouble to work for for decades.

I'm not trying to blame the victims--I'm observing that people are doing something which seems to make very little sense, and I'm curious about why.
nancylebov: blue moon (Default)
These are the Senators who might be convinced to vote to support the filibuster, and if yours is on the list I strongly recommend that you call and nag them to come down on the side of truth, virtue, and silly but useful political processes. If you think it was funny when a senator could filibuster by reading the phone book, now we have virtual filibusters--the mere threat of a filibuster can have its effect, and no one has to talk or listen for hours and hours.

The filibuster is an emergent property of the US Senate not having rules to limit the amount of time spent on debate, and it's valuable because it keeps majorities from completely over-ruling minorities. The particular issue is federal judges (with the Supreme Court likely to be an issue in the forseeable future), but even if you're fond of the current administration, you should consider the possibility that you might want some limits on any future administration you don't like as much.

Susan Collins (ME) - (202) 224-2523
Mike DeWine (OH) - (202) 224-2315
Judd Gregg (NH) - (202) 224-3324
Chuck Hagel (NE) - (202) 224-4224
Dick Lugar (IN) - (202) 224-4814
Lisa Murkowski (AK) - (202) 224-6665
Pat Roberts (KS) - (202) 224-4774
Gordon Smith (OR) - (202) 224-3753
Arlen Specter (PA) - (202) 224-4254
John Sununu (NH) - (202) 224-2841
John Warner (VA) - (202) 224-2023

ETA: It's been confirmed by a call to her office that Olympia Snowe (ME) - (202) 224-5344 has not confirmed her vote to continue the use of the filibuster. Please consider her to be added to the list of people to call.


I called Arlen Spector, and was only on hold for a few minutes.

Wikipedia--recommended, including a section on an inventive high-tech Canadian filibuster.

List of Senators.

This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast--man's laws, not God's--and if you cut them down--and you're just the man to do it--d'you think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ---Robert Bolt, _A Man for All Seasons_
nancylebov: blue moon (Default)
These are the Senators who might be convinced to vote to support the filibuster, and if yours is on the list I strongly recommend that you call and nag them to come down on the side of truth, virtue, and silly but useful political processes. If you think it was funny when a senator could filibuster by reading the phone book, now we have virtual filibusters--the mere threat of a filibuster can have its effect, and no one has to talk or listen for hours and hours.

The filibuster is an emergent property of the US Senate not having rules to limit the amount of time spent on debate, and it's valuable because it keeps majorities from completely over-ruling minorities. The particular issue is federal judges (with the Supreme Court likely to be an issue in the forseeable future), but even if you're fond of the current administration, you should consider the possibility that you might want some limits on any future administration you don't like as much.

Susan Collins (ME) - (202) 224-2523
Mike DeWine (OH) - (202) 224-2315
Judd Gregg (NH) - (202) 224-3324
Chuck Hagel (NE) - (202) 224-4224
Dick Lugar (IN) - (202) 224-4814
Lisa Murkowski (AK) - (202) 224-6665
Pat Roberts (KS) - (202) 224-4774
Gordon Smith (OR) - (202) 224-3753
Arlen Specter (PA) - (202) 224-4254
John Sununu (NH) - (202) 224-2841
John Warner (VA) - (202) 224-2023

ETA: It's been confirmed by a call to her office that Olympia Snowe (ME) - (202) 224-5344 has not confirmed her vote to continue the use of the filibuster. Please consider her to be added to the list of people to call.


I called Arlen Spector, and was only on hold for a few minutes.

Wikipedia--recommended, including a section on an inventive high-tech Canadian filibuster.

List of Senators.

This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast--man's laws, not God's--and if you cut them down--and you're just the man to do it--d'you think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ---Robert Bolt, _A Man for All Seasons_
nancylebov: blue moon (Default)
Here's a link to suggestions for theme gardens, mostly weird and/or morbid. [livejournal.com profile] nellorat, I think you'd like the Garden Sanguinaire. There's a Witch's Garden on the top level, but there's also a non-malevolent Wicca Garden.

Link found at [livejournal.com profile] tamnonlinear
nancylebov: blue moon (Default)
Here's a link to suggestions for theme gardens, mostly weird and/or morbid. [livejournal.com profile] nellorat, I think you'd like the Garden Sanguinaire. There's a Witch's Garden on the top level, but there's also a non-malevolent Wicca Garden.

Link found at [livejournal.com profile] tamnonlinear

May 2025

S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11 121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 10th, 2025 09:14 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios