 |
| Now that's a fillibuster |
.
1) The President should NOT have the right (even hypothetically) to order a drone strike on a US Citizen on US soil. Period. Whether that President is Obama or Clinton or Bush or who-ever. We have an entire court system for that. AND Judges with cell-phones.
.
This is the point of Senator Rand's fillibuster - to point this out. He is right and Eric Holder (and President Obama) are wrong.
.
2) He is talking, which is what a fillibuster is all about. The Constitution limits a House of Representative's talking time to 1 hour. There is NO LIMIT to the Senate. This is how a Senator (or group of Senators) can force a fillibuster. By talking and yielding only to Senators that agree with the position.
.
Now earlier in the day, Senator Mitch McConnell fillibustered a Judicial appointment by submitting a piece of paper. A thoroughly appropriate appointment was fillibuster because she would change the make up of the DC Court of appeals from majority Republican appointed to evenly appointed. But Deputy Dawg didn't have to explain it. He just filled a motion. Which is (how do you Americans' say it..) bullshit.
.
As an aside, I like this note from the columnist Gail Collins, which is snarky, but funny ....
.
He was also frequently hard to take, especially when he got the occasional helping hand from a Tea Party supporter. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas enthusiastically noted that Paul was staging a rebellion on the anniversary of the fall of the Alamo and compared the filibuster to the famous letter from its commander, William Travis, which ended with “Victory or death.” This was the very same letter George W. Bush once quoted to American golfers battling for the Ryder Cup. Once in a while, it would be nice if a politician from Texas pointed out that it’s possible to stand up for principle without fatalities.