Let me start by saying that I have done no research on this topic, so I will count on others to enlighten me (us) if they can. I generally come down on the liberal side of things, but I have come across in the news instances where either Reid or Pelosi would not permit a full debate/offering of amendments on particular legislation in their respective chambers. In a recent case, it caused either Snowe or Collins of Maine (I can't remember which) to back down on supporting the repeal of DADT. Is it fair to not allow the Republicans opportunity to at least voice their views on the floor of the House or Senate and be given an opportunity to propose legislative amendments and have them voted on? (Let's just say that I am aware that this can become a very intricate process politically) If anyone says that it's fair because the Republicans did it to the Democrats when they were in the majority, that's not a good enough answer. Maybe, instead of payback, the Democrats could be setting a good example for everyone. What are the Republicans' real motives for demanding further debate on legislation that their party as a whole might be disinclined to support anyway? (I never said I trusted them) Is it just to try to score political points or another of their obstructionist tactics, or do they have valid reasons for it in the context of representative government? Might they be more likely to vote for some legislation if this was at least permitted.