Skip to main content

Rand Paul filibuster goes (wait for it) ... bipartisan

... as Democrat Ron Wyden joins in.

Folks, this is an old-fashioned filibuster ...
Paul began by saying he will "speak until I can no longer speak,"

... being used for exactly what the maneuver was designed for.

In the words of Senator Paul:
"I will speak as long as it takes until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone, on American soil, without first being charged with a crime, without first being found guilty by a court," Paul said.
Five other Senators have now joined the filibuster.

Comments

NCSDad said…
Could this be the moment Congress finally grows a pair and stands up to the imperial Presidency? Fili-fuckin-buster baby!
NCSDad said…
Or not .......
Jesse McVay said…
Lets not underestimate the value of Sen Paul's efforts strictly from a morale boosting point of view. I feel a bit reinvigorated and ready to rejoin the battle.
Unknown said…
I agree. I only hope that more Americans are awoken from this. I think it is a big win, even if it is not fully clear what was accomplished.
tom said…
It was a win. Not sure I'd call it a huge win.

What was accomplished was that Rand Paul forced an admission from Eric Holder & the Obama administration that the President does not legally have the power to order the killing of a U.S. citizen in the U.S. who does not pose an immediate & credible threat.

It was not a huge win because the fact that it had to be asked at all clearly demonstrates just how fucked up this country has gotten. Every single person in America with at least an elementary school education ought to know that the answer is a clear and unequivocal "NO!".

It sickens me that it took a filibuster to pry that answer out of our traitorous, rogue Attorney General.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

Libertarian National Committee Deathwatch Part 1

As the LNC continues to lurch towards collapse, with the latest news of mass layoffs at HQ, I've decided to begin tracking those things leading the national party to irrelevance, even as state and local parties gain power. As news, rumors and rhetoric break out, I shall chronicle them in this ongoing series at Delaware Libertarian. Organizations approaching failure have a number of characteristics. One of the most striking is renunciation of their purpose and effort to reinvent themselves as a "me-too" provider of services in the marketplace. In this, the LNC has been on a collision course with destiny for a while now. Recently, for example, it hired Republican Party web site developer TerraEclipse to redesign the LNC web site . Terra created a web site very similar to those of the clients it brags most about -- far-right Republican conservatives like Tom McClintock and BJ Lawson. A quick look at the web site they built for the LNC is instructive. The tagline on the ...

Soda tax debate reveals fundamental progressive assertions about your lack of individual rights and the "responsiblities" of the State

I thought it would be at least amusing to use the Delawareliberal comments as sub-headings regarding each category of what is wrong with the proposed tax on sodas and juice drinks. But there are so many different little strands of each comment that it would be impossible to pull them all out. So, instead, I'm going to let you read them in more or less the order they appeared, and note the assumptions. pandora: I’m perfectly okay with taxing sodas and juice drinks. Mainly because they’re total crap, and one of the main reasons our country’s children are overweight. They are also dirt cheap. Assumptions here: (1) Because "I" am perfectly okay with a new tax it should be imposed on everybody; (2) it is the government's responsibility to keep children from being obese; (3) the cheapness of the product to be taxed justifies charging people more for it. John Manifold: Soda fattens your kids [and you and your husband], shortens their lives, costs more than water [a...