Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    12:37 AM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Filibuster Reform. Where do you stand? Back to Topics
Hiram 615

Champion Author
Pittsburgh

Posts:23,874
Points:3,043,415
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Nov 27, 2012 8:22:02 AM

The first, more cursory change, would make what’s known as the “motion to proceed” non-debatable.

The other would recreate a status quo ante, where filibustering senators would be required to hold the floor and draw public attention to their obstruction efforts.

Dems Defend Filibuster Reform Effort: ‘McConnell Has Broken The Social Contract’

[Edited by: Hiram 615 at 11/27/2012 8:22:51 AM EST]
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
KatmanDo
Champion Author Detroit

Posts:15,383
Points:3,198,055
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 13, 2012 2:11:32 PM

Perhaps the wholesale gridlock which results from wholesale use of the threat to filibuster is a good thing. Prolonged gridlock in Washington, DC may just convince enough people that it's high time for the Reds and the Blues to go their separate ways. That "staying together for the sake of the kids" has always been a bunch of balderdash. Eventually it seems like it will also occur to the adults in the room that the existing irreconcilable differences are never going to be resolved, so it makes more sense to go our separate ways and pursue happiness in the ways which best suit us.

In the late 1700s the differences between the British Parliament and the majority of the population in the 13 colonies also could not be solved in a mutually-agreed fashion. Today, we are each doing pretty well separately. That is merely one example of a successful national divorce.

[Edited by: KatmanDo at 12/13/2012 2:15:56 PM EST]
Profile Pic
YDraigGoch
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:7,346
Points:86,435
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 13, 2012 12:12:28 PM

We are a Capitalist country. Most of us read the paper, and see the bigwigs in corporate America. They sometimes get fired, and replaced by a new bigwig. They get fired because they did not deliver as expected

Now, does a minority of board members get to stop the new guy at every turn? Do they get to threaten the "nuclear option" if their views are thwarted?

NO! That would destroy the system. Instead, the new guy is given s free hand (for a while) to see if he or she can turn it around. Try new ideas. Try variations on old ideas. Anything to get the profits up. If they fail, they too will be fired. If they succeed, the minority that opposed them usually remains silent for fear of being fired themselves. They are told to "get with the program, or get out".

Here is what is wrong with the current filibuster situation. It keeps the new guy (from either party) from trying out things that might work. Just because WE think it won't work does not mean it won't. None of us are God. None of us can predict the future, although some people have the arrogance to think they can.

Companies cannot allow obstructionism because it will keep them from innovating new concepts. And that is a meltdown situation for a company.

So let's reform the entire filibuster process, or eliminate it all together. It has held us back long enough.

No matter how much doom and gloom is predicted by the naysayers, this country can still be self correcting if a President screws things up. But it cannot be self correcting unless we let the new guy try something new. Or something old with a new twist. Run the government like corporate America does.

You know the old saying about insanity being defined as doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results? Well, we seem to be a nation of raving lunatics.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,156
Points:1,521,245
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 12, 2012 9:47:26 PM

Hey ydraig - if Dingy Harry and those like him would have to stand behind his lies with the idea he might be challenged to a duel I bet the level of truth, civility and straight shooting would go up a lot.
Profile Pic
Bell30012
Champion Author Atlanta

Posts:4,527
Points:692,610
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Dec 12, 2012 9:39:57 PM

Red Dragon - I'm sure not many people in here have ever heard of that duel in 1859 and that was a Democrat. Things have sure changed since those days. I love those oddities in history.
Profile Pic
YDraigGoch
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:7,346
Points:86,435
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 12, 2012 8:38:34 PM

Oh, I agree. The hypocrisy of the Democrats is enough to gag you. Much of what goes on concerning the filibuster was THEIR idea.

I'm saying that this is a situation that should never have started in the first place. In fact, the Constitution does not address filibustering at all. Of course, back then the was a lot of "Full of blustering" going on.

But it was contained, and kept in line by common decency, an occasional thrown chair, and once, by pistols.

Decency is not so common any more. Duelling, on the other hand, appears more civilized than the "methods" employed these days. :o)
Profile Pic
johnnyg1200
Champion Author St. Louis

Posts:8,393
Points:1,237,795
Joined:May 2011
Message Posted: Dec 11, 2012 12:20:03 AM

“””””””Correct, and the Democrats are abusing the rules as well, turning the time honored bill process on its head as each bill comes out of the house and is tossed into a garbage can, a tool of obstruction and gridlock to prevent any debate or progress.””””””

If all else fails they could always leave town and hide.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,156
Points:1,521,245
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 10, 2012 9:14:38 PM

Red lizard its interesting to hear you say "It is way for the party without the power to stop ANYTHING they do not like. And that subverts the process." Not true - spending bills aka budgets canot be filibustered. But Dingy Harry will not let them be discussed or voted on.

You also said "It is because they were elected by the people. And as such, they represent the majority. And the Democratic process is required by the laws of our Republic to let that majority be heard." But when Dingy Harry will not even let teh minority party bring up an amendment nor will he allow any bill he doesnt like to even be discussed dont you think he is not letting the minority to be heard at all?

Didnt the 'majority party' physically lock the minorty party out of the process to come up with obamacare?

If you dont like the minority party using the rules designed to insure fairness then tell the majority party to stop with the games they have been playing.



Ydraig - watch the video I linked to on Dec 8th in this topic.
Profile Pic
YDraigGoch
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:7,346
Points:86,435
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 10, 2012 8:45:10 PM

In all fairness, when this was proposed years ago by the Republicans, the Democrats were against it.

But that was before the pure partisanship type politics took over the country. A filibuster back then was a rare event.

No, this mere threat of a filibuster stuff has got to stop. It is way for the party without the power to stop ANYTHING they do not like. And that subverts the process.

There is a reason one party platform is a majority. It is because they were elected by the people. And as such, they represent the majority. And the Democratic process is required by the laws of our Republic to let that majority be heard. And by those same laws, if they screw it up, we can fire them, and hire the other people.

That is the way this government was designed. Just because you do not like the way some things are at the moment does not mean that you can tear it apart for your own purposes. You wait for the other side to mess up, then present a logical, well though out alternative. You don't throw a temper tantrum and threaten to talk us to death.

The filibuster should be put back to it's original method. It worked pretty well for a long time. It has NOT woked lately, except as an obstructionist tool of the minority party. If they continue to subvert the will of the majority, they will continue to be an ever shrinking minority.

Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,156
Points:1,521,245
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 10, 2012 1:42:28 PM

Pan I dont know. You will have to find someone who is LDS and is willing to say. I'm not LDS.

The little I know of them would lead me to say that since its a church thing they wont make it public. In the Catholic church where I was raised it would be a matter between the priest hearing his confession and the person. There have been times when the priest has said that they must undo the damage they have done. At that point the person has the choice to do what is required by the priest and receive forgivness of his sins or he can choose to remain in sin and ignore the priest. At some point the situation may escalate to the point the person is excommunicated and will be told to leave the faith.

But I may be off a little there and for sure I dont know what or how the LDS church handles such matters.
Profile Pic
Panama19
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:30,513
Points:3,132,785
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 10, 2012 12:37:27 AM


flyboyUT, "Dingy Harry is caught being a lying Swell Ol Boy"

One wonders what the Mormon Church thinks about their boy in the Senate?

Profile Pic
KatmanDo
Champion Author Detroit

Posts:15,383
Points:3,198,055
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 9, 2012 11:35:34 PM

"Filibuster Reform. Where do you stand?"

I'm all for requiring the senator who wishes to filibuster to actually keep talking so that their behavior can be broadcast across the nation. As long as their constituents continue to support such behavior, the senator in question should have little to worry about.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,156
Points:1,521,245
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 9, 2012 5:15:00 PM

AC - did you watch the video?
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,085
Points:3,445,270
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Dec 9, 2012 2:20:42 PM

mp2 said: "Look i'm not saying the Domocrats are perfect they certainly share in the blame here. What I'm saying is that you cannot say that it is ONLY the Democrats. To do so is simply burying your head in the sand."

And Hiram said: "The Senate is supposed to be a place of compromise, a home for grand debates on the biggest issues. But Republicans are abusing the rules, turning the time-honored filibuster into a tool of obstruction and gridlock to prevent any debate or progress. Since becoming the minority in 2007, Republicans have threatened to filibuster more than 400 times – twice as much as any previous term."

--Guys, nobody is saying either party comes out "lilly white" on this. But again, for a couple years there, the dems had the supermajority, or close to it. And again, you talk of "compromise" and "grand debate". Great! Where's it at? How come Republican input was excluded (locked out is perhaps a more accurate term) on the ObamaCare bill? And again, how come Dirty Harry Reid WILL NOT PERMIT annual budget discussions for the last THREE YEARS? No matter what you say, you cannot tar the Republicans with that stink. The Democrats own it, and nothing you say changes that. Why are the Senate Dems NOT allowing debate on fundamental issues? Why do not the Republicans get their say, then allow the up or down votes?

And MP2 - I'd tell you that I affix the blame for this about 2/3 Dem and about 1/3 Rep, if you'd really like me to assign fault %. And again, there is no excuse 1) for Reid not allowing the annual budget bills to be debated - the reps have ZERO say, therefore, Harry owns it.. and 2) With the ObamaCare, the Reps were literally locked out. The Dems "own it" and you can't say the Reps are obstructionist, it was passed and signed over their heads and without any input from them.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,156
Points:1,521,245
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 8, 2012 6:40:35 PM

The video is an absolute hoot!!!!!
.
Dingy Harry is caught being a lying Swell Ol Boy. This should be played over and over on every TV channel at least ten times in every prime time evening.

I just proves what a miserable, dishonest, individual he really is.
Profile Pic
Hiram 615
Champion Author Pittsburgh

Posts:23,874
Points:3,043,415
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Dec 7, 2012 11:46:54 AM

Mitch McFilibuster thought he could score some political points and embarrass the president by trying to force Democrats to vote on a bill that he himself proposed last year, assuming that the Democrats would break rank with President Obama over it. It's an idea that President Obama happens to support, which would give the president unilateral authority to raise the debt ceiling.
Mitch McFilibuster tried to attach it as an amendment to unrelated bill the Senate was currently working on, and Reid said no. But Reid did a quick head count and found he had 51 Senators who would support the bill as a stand alone. So he offered it. Seeing his little attempt at political theater disintegrate before him, all McConnell had left to do was filibuster, and object to his own bill getting an up or down vote.

That's Mitch McFilibuster, making history again with the filibuster. Not only has he led more filibusters during his minority leadership than any other senator in history, he's now on record as one of very few senators ever to filibuster himself.

What could possibly make for a stronger case for reforming the filibuster?

Wasn't it Bill Clinton who said,

"There is nothing wrong in America that can't be fixed with what is right in America", except Mitch McConnell.

Profile Pic
Cliffisher
Champion Author Wisconsin

Posts:30,238
Points:3,724,850
Joined:Sep 2003
Message Posted: Dec 7, 2012 8:10:07 AM

The good people of Kentucky need to do something about old Mitch.

He has totally lost it.
Profile Pic
Hiram 615
Champion Author Pittsburgh

Posts:23,874
Points:3,043,415
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Dec 6, 2012 8:39:52 PM

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) may have made United States senate history today when he beat his own legislative baloney, blocking a straight up-or-down vote on a proposal that he, himself, offered for a vote Thursday morning. The bill, which would have taken the debt ceiling gun away from the head of the U.S. economy by requiring a two-thirds majority to override a presidential increase to the debt ceiling, was McConnell's idea, but when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid agreed with McConnell's request for a vote on the bill Thursday afternoon, McConnell objected.

Good old Mitch McFilibuster makes the case for filibuster reform.



[Edited by: Hiram 615 at 12/6/2012 8:42:09 PM EST]
Profile Pic
fracknsave
Champion Author Grand Rapids

Posts:1,666
Points:58,000
Joined:Mar 2012
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2012 4:14:36 PM

The whole thing about the senate is that it's supposed to be the 'deliberative' chamber where radical bills like healthcare reform are brought into law by the majority compromising with the minority so that the country isn't transformed all at once.

Of course, funny-man Franken in Minnesota working the ballot boxes in an election too close to call for weeks after the election for his mysterious and stunning recount win for the 60th and deciding vote, so the only good thing about that was, it took most of 2 years to twist the last few arms to get that done, precluding major damage on many other fronts. And if the elected cannot vote their conscience without undue influence like what Rep. Stupak and Sen Nelson (now both retired, wonder why?) by the transformation juggernaut of socialism and now the majority wants to reform the filibuster.

Whether or not I'm still mad about this has no bearing on what a joke the socialist party has become under the guise of pretending to be one of Kennedy's democrats. Personally, I don't think going down this path any further is really worth starting a civil war over, but then on the other hand, a little revolution every now and then over the constitution is a worthy cause, don't you think?



[Edited by: fracknsave at 12/3/2012 4:20:08 PM EST]
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:15,999
Points:2,310,810
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2012 3:22:17 PM

Hiram states: <<<But Republicans are abusing the rules, turning the time-honored filibuster into a tool of obstruction and gridlock to prevent any debate or progress.>>>

Correct, and the Democrats are abusing the rules as well, turning the time honored bill process on its head as each bill comes out of the house and is tossed into a garbage can, a tool of obstruction and gridlock to prevent any debate or progress.
Profile Pic
Bell30012
Champion Author Atlanta

Posts:4,527
Points:692,610
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2012 1:34:21 PM

And Harry Reid has blocked all Republican bills by simply refusing to bring them to the floor to allow debate. The Republicans have been forced to use the filibuster to keep from being walked on by a Democrat agenda.
Profile Pic
IammeCA
Veteran Author Ventura

Posts:479
Points:179,665
Joined:Sep 2009
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2012 12:38:54 PM

"I am saying that Dingy Harry and the rest of the Democrats who are saying they want to stop or change the filibuster now when we have them on vidoe saying the opposit when they were teh mnority party are a bunch opf hypocrits and should not be listened to."

I am saying that Mitch McConnell and the rest of the Republicans who are saying they want to preserve the filibuster now when we have them on video saying the opposite when they were the majority party are a bunch of hypocrites and should not be listened to.

That applies equally well so I guess that means we should not listen to any of them.
Profile Pic
Hiram 615
Champion Author Pittsburgh

Posts:23,874
Points:3,043,415
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2012 12:15:31 PM

The Senate is supposed to be a place of compromise, a home for grand debates on the biggest issues.

But Republicans are abusing the rules, turning the time-honored filibuster into a tool of obstruction and gridlock to prevent any debate or progress. Since becoming the minority in 2007, Republicans have threatened to filibuster more than 400 times – twice as much as any previous term.

With the current rules, just the threat to filibuster is enough to halt proceedings. And they do it to block progress on everything from mundane procedural votes to judicial nominees and the budget.

Abusing this time-honored tradition, Republicans have blocked:

Judicial confirmations to fill 55 judicial vacancies, including 34 considered “judicial emergencies.”
Food Safety Enhancement Act
Wounded Veteran Job Security Act
American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009
And the list goes on and on…
Profile Pic
Bell30012
Champion Author Atlanta

Posts:4,527
Points:692,610
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Dec 2, 2012 6:29:41 PM

Like what happened with the Kennedy seat, I wish the Democrats good will in changing the law. Then when they find themselves back in the minority, I wish them understanding why it doesn't get changed back.

The Senate is supposed to be the upper house. The purpose of the filibuster is to keep ALL 100 Senators relevant. One group having 50 votes can override another group. Otherwise the majority party would do everything that they wished and the other party could stay home.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,156
Points:1,521,245
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 2, 2012 1:01:50 PM

Mike -- I am saying that Dingy Harry and the rest of the Democrats who are saying they want to stop or change the filibuster now when we have them on vidoe saying the opposit when they were teh mnority party are a bunch opf hypocrits and should not be listened to.

But tell you what I am for a change in the senate rules. I propose that it takes a supermajority of 66%plus one to pass any bill. But it only takes a simple majority to remove any existing law.
Profile Pic
michaelphoenix2
All-Star Author Tucson

Posts:887
Points:12,080
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Dec 1, 2012 10:31:54 PM

Look i'm not saying the Domocrats are perfect they certainly share in the blame here. What I'm saying is that you cannot say that it is ONLY the Democrats. To do so is simply burying your head in the sand.

BOTH SIDES ARE ACTING LIKE CHILDREN

Lets not encourage them further by pretending its one sides fault vs the other's.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,156
Points:1,521,245
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 1, 2012 10:21:57 PM

michaelphoenix2 "How anyone can defend blatant obstructionism is beyond me."

How anyone can defend the blatent political posturing of Dirty Hary and his fellow 'democrats' is beyond me. Dirty Harry has used his powers to stop any bill he doesnt like. They cant even talk about it.

The response is to use the only tool the Repubs have left - the filibuster.

Mike the Democrat house (when they were in the majority) and the Democrat Senate physically locked the doors so rebublicans could have no input on bills!!!!!

If Dingy Harry and the rest really want bipartisanship on anything they have to start doing it!
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,085
Points:3,445,270
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Dec 1, 2012 10:12:01 PM

MP2 sarcastically wailed: "The Dems are 100% at fault here..... the republicans share no blame... riiiiight."

-- Let's reason this out, sir. Hmmm.. who is in charge of the Senate? Why that would be Harry Reid (D-NV). He has specifically killed debate on budgets that the House has sent up for debate. Reid and the Dems have specifically killed the debate for over 3 years. THREE YEARS, MAN! Do you get it? If the Republican controlled House (and the House of Representatives only changed over, what? 2 years ago?) is so repugnant, then why did Reid kill one annual bill presented by a DEM controlled House? And since Reid has "license to kill", why doesn't he allow debate on the bill, and just kill it? Voting strictly on partisan lines, he'd win every single time.

Absolutely the Democrats are much more at fault than the Republicans. They control the executive and the Senate. There is no reason the Senate, if it found the House (Republican?) bill so reprehensible, couldn't veto it and send it back to the House. But the DEMs are in charge, they control the agenda, and they won't allow it to come to a vote. And no matter how hard you want to argue that it's all the Republicans' fault, or that blame for that must be equally shared, that doesn't work. The Dems control the agenda in the upper chamber. They are at fault well over 50% on this particular point.

I'm sure that the Senate Dems have seen the fiscal cliff coming. And this is probably why the want to quash debate on a budget. Instead, they prefer to pass various emergency funding measures to keep this debate from happening. Well, now it's going to be time to "pay the piper". If not, he's going to lead us right off the cliff - with "Dirty Harry" at the front of the parade.
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:21,890
Points:322,265
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Dec 1, 2012 8:54:35 PM

"As it stands right now its simply too easy to filibuster."

It is. I like the idea of requiring those who filibuster to speak continually and remain on-topic.
Profile Pic
michaelphoenix2
All-Star Author Tucson

Posts:887
Points:12,080
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Dec 1, 2012 8:44:37 PM

The Dems are 100% at fault here..... the republicans share no blame... riiiiight.

Both sides are acting like idiots these days but to say that one side is completly at fault is asinine.

The budget bill that the Republicans keep sending are nothing more than statement pieces that they never expected the senate to take up. Those bills were made and pushed through a republican dominated House with no Dem input (sound familiar - its equally idiotic when the Dems do it) but the topic here at hand is the filibuster which is being abused.

As it stands right now its simply too easy to filibuster. All a senator has to do is have one of his aides file some paperwork and the entire law is held up. This is not how the filibuster was originally intended and is not how it should work. If you want to stop a piece of legislation you should stand up and be heard not simply file a sheet of paper and hide in the shadows. If you oppose a law you shouldn't be afraid to defend that position.
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,085
Points:3,445,270
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Dec 1, 2012 8:14:55 PM

mp2 - perhaps if the Dems would accept Rep input and WORK WITH THEM, rather than shutting them out at every turn, then the Reps might not be so quick to want to filibuster.

But then again, your own side needs to look in the mirror as well. Why is it that Harry Reid has not permitted an annual budget to even be debated for over 1000 days, in violation of our laws? That is 100% the Dems fault, and you know it good and well.
Profile Pic
michaelphoenix2
All-Star Author Tucson

Posts:887
Points:12,080
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Dec 1, 2012 7:42:57 PM

The filibuster is a legitimate tool of the opposition.... HOWEVER, as it has been used this last 4 years has been blatantly abusive to the entire process. the Republicans have used it more in the past 4 years than it has EVER been used before. How anyone can defend blatant obstructionism is beyond me.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,156
Points:1,521,245
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 1, 2012 6:38:11 PM

Here Dingy Harry says he will support the filibuster and be a nice guy.

Here Dirty Harry and Obama suport the filibuster. Dont forget Durbin and Schumer and Biden adn others ----all stanch Democrats defedenging the filibuster.

[Edited by: flyboyUT at 12/1/2012 6:42:04 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Bell30012
Champion Author Atlanta

Posts:4,527
Points:692,610
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Nov 30, 2012 6:34:44 PM

Red Dragon - Great idea. They should actually read the bill out loud for the country to hear. Some how I don't think even the Democrats want that to happen. Way too much pork in those bills to put a microphone on...
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,156
Points:1,521,245
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Nov 30, 2012 6:28:14 PM

Kinda says it all doesnt it.
Profile Pic
YDraigGoch
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:7,346
Points:86,435
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Nov 30, 2012 11:19:19 AM

They should not only required to stand there and talk, but they should be required to stay on topic. No reading the phone book, Mark Twain, or anything else.

My Grandmother always said "If you don't have something pertinent to add, SHUT UP!"

Good advice to Congress.
Profile Pic
gocatgo
Champion Author South Carolina

Posts:19,021
Points:3,131,735
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Nov 29, 2012 11:06:24 AM

Any legislator that insists on a filibuster should have to make all of their points on live tv for the nation to understand the issue being contested. This will separate the idiots from the patriots. In some cases a filibuster may cost an idiot their seat in congress.
Profile Pic
streetrider
Champion Author Gary

Posts:10,359
Points:150,335
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Nov 29, 2012 8:15:42 AM

Here is where I stand if someone wants to fiilibuster they must stand and talk, see Mr. Smith goes to Washington.

Further more since our elected officials don't work all that many days they need to meet or stay on the job till its done. Especially when they are passing critical legislation.

Has anyone ever been a juror, the agreement comes quicker as supper time nears.
Profile Pic
streetrider
Champion Author Gary

Posts:10,359
Points:150,335
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Nov 29, 2012 8:15:41 AM

Here is where I stand if someone wants to fiilibuster they must stand and talk, see Mr. Smith goes to Washington.

Further more since our elected officials don't work all that many days they need to meet or stay on the job till its done. Especially when they are passing critical legislation.

Has anyone ever been a juror, the agreement comes quicker as supper time nears.
Profile Pic
streetrider
Champion Author Gary

Posts:10,359
Points:150,335
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Nov 29, 2012 8:15:41 AM

Here is where I stand if someone wants to fiilibuster they must stand and talk, see Mr. Smith goes to Washington.

Further more since our elected officials don't work all that many days they need to meet or stay on the job till its done. Especially when they are passing critical legislation.

Has anyone ever been a juror, the agreement comes quicker as supper time nears.
Profile Pic
Bell30012
Champion Author Atlanta

Posts:4,527
Points:692,610
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Nov 29, 2012 6:37:49 AM

Keep in mind that any BUDGET bill can not be filibustered. So it still only takes 51 votes to pass any budget bill. (50 for the Democrats)
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,085
Points:3,445,270
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Nov 29, 2012 12:32:09 AM

As a side (sweet fries, please sgm!) - I saw a quote from then Sen. Obama, claiming that filibuster reform needed not to happen. It would take away the voice of the opposing, minority party.

So now the Democrats want to do exactly that. I think we can safely spell hypocrite as: "D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T".

And I also found it interesting to note that the filibuster is just to bring legislation to a vote. After it is allowed by 60% of the members to come to a vote, at that point it's majority rule.
Profile Pic
streetrider
Champion Author Gary

Posts:10,359
Points:150,335
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Nov 28, 2012 8:43:18 AM

Lets return to the days of MR. Smith goes to Washington.
Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:23,065
Points:2,979,695
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Nov 28, 2012 8:10:14 AM

If you look at the rate of the filibusters, you can see that it has become a form of abuse of process, really. If they want to filibuster, either party, whenever in the minority (as the Dems will surely be someday again), should have to mount an actual filibuster, rather than just state their intention to do so.

"A talking filibuster draws bad publicity to a Bill packed full of unrelated pork (which most are). Reid is happy to keep it as quiet as possible, lights out mode."

Yes.
Profile Pic
Panama19
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:30,513
Points:3,132,785
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Nov 28, 2012 7:25:40 AM


AC-302, "And I wonder if the Dems did get filibuster reform, would they then whine about it when someday (and it will happen that) the Reps get their supermajority?"

No need to wonder - we can just remember back to when the Dems were filibustering Bush's judicial appointments.

Back then filibuster reform was called the "nuclear option" to get past Dem obstructionism.

Dems may cry about filibusters now that they have control, but they will cry about the reverse when the shoe is on the other foot.

Profile Pic
Bell30012
Champion Author Atlanta

Posts:4,527
Points:692,610
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Nov 28, 2012 6:19:39 AM

Hey AC-302 - Look two posts down from you... Just about exactly what I said.
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,085
Points:3,445,270
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Nov 27, 2012 9:53:59 PM

I agree with some others here. There is NO need for filibuster reform. It seems to me that the idea, floated by Dems, is intended to make the Dems the steamroller party with only 51% or a simple majority. I think we need no change. Especially now, we need the input of BOTH parties to craft legislation. The minority party needs to have input, no matter if that minority is Dem or Rep. ObamaCare proved that to us all, when the Dems physically locked out the Reps from committees. No, I favor no change. And I wonder if the Dems did get filibuster reform, would they then whine about it when someday (and it will happen that) the Reps get their supermajority?

You know, Teddy Kennedy did this to an extent. It used to be in MA that Senators were appointed by the governor. Teddy got the law changed to popular vote for senate vacancies. Then later, upon Kennedy's deathbed, he urged the Dems to go back to governor appointment when, the Rep (Scott Brown) was sure to get elected.
Profile Pic
johnnyg1200
Champion Author St. Louis

Posts:8,393
Points:1,237,795
Joined:May 2011
Message Posted: Nov 27, 2012 8:44:21 PM

The Idea of filibuster reform will depend on who has the majority and who wants what. If one party has a majority but can’t break a filibuster they will be all for the reform, but in four years if the tables are turned, they will be the ones screaming for the law to be changed back because it was a bad idea……Be very careful of what you wish for you may get it. And it may come back to bite you in the fourth point of contact.

I like the filibuster rule. It keeps a small majority from riding roughshod over a large minority.
Profile Pic
Bell30012
Champion Author Atlanta

Posts:4,527
Points:692,610
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Nov 27, 2012 8:18:54 PM

The purpose of the filibuster was to keep the Senate as the higher house, to make the senators work deals to pass legislation. Right now, the Democrats want to change the filibuster rule because they are in the majority. Silly thing about rule changes is that they can really bite you in the butt.

Massachusetts had a Republican Governor, so the state changed the law on how a senator is replaced. The Democrats were concerned that the Republican Governor would appoint a Republican to replace a Senator if there were to become an opening. So the law was changed to require a popular vote. Surely, Democrats would win in an election in such a blue state.

Then Senator Ted Kennedy became ill. The governor of Massachusetts was now a Democrat. Quickly, they tried to change the law back. They failed. A Republican won the seat in the election and this resulted in the Democrats losing their Super Majority in the Senate.

Rule changes have consequences.
Profile Pic
teacher_tim
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,281
Points:826,510
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Nov 27, 2012 3:06:12 PM

Be careful what you wish for...
Profile Pic
nraacct
Champion Author North Carolina

Posts:9,111
Points:1,767,105
Joined:Jul 2004
Message Posted: Nov 27, 2012 2:43:35 PM

Is it me or does it seem like the ones who scream for filibuster reform are frustrated because their appointments cannot be simply rubber stamped in unopposed?
Post a reply Back to Topics