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 — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...