Mario must have missed the US Senate lecture in his high school civics class.

There is a big difference in what the democrats were trying to do in 1995 and what the Republicans tried to do this year. They are not one in the same, but the Republicans would certainly like you to think so.

The democrats amendment in '95 was an effort to change how the filibuster is conducted, but they did it according to Senate rules.

Republicans, on the other hand, attempted to break the rules to change the rules. They sought to avoid needing a 2/3 vote of the senate to stop judicial filibusters by instead raising a point of order that judicial filibusters are unconstitutional. They would presumably get the chair, (dick cheney) to sustain, democrats could object, then a majority could overide that objection and the ruling would stand.

So, the GOP was trying to evade the basic 2/3 votes they need to end debate, whereas dems just followed the rules of the senate.

Big difference.
Tom | 08.10.05 - 3:34 pm | #

Tom, thanks for filling me in on the missed civic lesson. But, near as I can tell, the end result is the same. A change to judicial filibustering, and in 1995 Sen. Bingaman voted one way, and ten year later he feels another way.
Mario Burgos | Homepage | 08.11.05 - 1:17 am | #