Do away with the Fillibuster? by Niki2

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Do away with the Fillibuster?

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Thursday, January 28, 2010 07:14
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2785
PAGE 3 of 3

Wednesday, January 27, 2010 2:01 PM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:

Go beyond the ads and the hype. Just look at what the Dems have done openly....bribed 2 Senators (of their own Party) with tax-payer dollars, meaning other states would have to pay their Medicare bills, and granted tax immunity to Unions that backed Obama for President.

But you say that as if it's ONLY Democrats that would do such a thing. How quickly you forget cutting taxes for the top 2%, the richest of the rich, openly bribing Senators of their own party with things like a Bridge to Nowhere, and handing out hundreds of billions of dollars, no strings attached, to the very people who steered the economy off a cliff.

And yes, I know you posted that you hate the Supremes' ruling, but then you're using poll numbers that clearly show the influence of big spending by big industry on public opinion, and you're using it to try to back your point that Americans don't want a public option or ANY healthcare reform.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 27, 2010 2:19 PM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
A government-run healthcare option where patients get the care they NEED instead of the care that makes someone the most profit would provide good national competition to our current greed-driven capitalistic system.

But anyway - off of health care and back to the filibuster ...

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

Hmmm... Need-driven rather than greed-driven. I like it.

That, of course, means it'll never work here...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 27, 2010 2:29 PM

KWICKO

Quote:
As I quoted far above,
Quote:
The most widely cited enabler for the recent acceleration was a 1975 Senate rule change—one that, coming at a time when filibusters were on the rise, sought to reduce them by lowering the cloture requirement from 67 to 60 votes. But this fix (combined with a less widely cited earlier procedural change made in 1961) inadvertently increased the filibuster's use by ushering in the so-called "procedural" filibuster, a sort of filibuster-lite that allowed the minority to block legislation without a dissenting senator's having to speechify himself hoarse.

In the modern filibuster, the senators trying to block a vote do not have to hold the floor and continue to speak as long as there is a quorum. In the past, when one senator became exhausted, another would need to take over to continue the filibuster. Ultimately, the filibuster could be exhausted by a majority who would even sleep in cots outside the Senate Chamber to exhaust the filibusterers. Today, the minority just advises the majority leader that the filibuster is on. All debate on the bill is stopped until cloture is voted by three-fifths (now 60 votes) of the Senate.
http://www.slate.com/id/2241233/?from=rss

And THAT is what we need to get back to. As has been pointed out, the Senate can change its rules at the beginning of the legislative session. Rather than "go nuclear" and get rid of the filibuster altogether, why not dial back the rules to what they used to be, when THEY WORKED AS INTENDED?

As you've so clearly shown, the quick change that you think will be for the better often turns out to be for the much, much worse.

I'm just not in favor of tossing out a procedure and a rule that have been in place since the nation's inception, just because we think it'll make things easier THIS YEAR. That sets a helluva precedent, and not a good one, in my book.

Sorry, but when it comes to my reverence for the Constitution, I tend to be VERY conservative. I think there's lots of it that's open for interpretation and growth, but I flinch at changing the basic RULES for how we govern.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 27, 2010 5:17 PM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
The problem with a 2 party system.. you've GOT to have the "nuclear option". It prevents one side from getting out of hand.

I don't think you understand what the 'nuclear option' is.

The Constitution says that the President: "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court,"

The clause requires a supermajority to pass a treaty but expressly does NOT require it to confirm an appointment to the Supreme Court or other judges. The Republican argument was that by excluding the the requirement, the filibuster's supermajority requirement to get a vote for a Judge was in itself unconstitutional.

Republicans were correct. Why then was this never done? Because Democrats threatened to shut down the Senate...no business, if it was used...hence it was called the nuclear option. It would get the Judge's their votes, but destroy the Senate's function in every other sense. It should be noted the 'Gang of 14' led by McCain and Leiberman was the compromise that finally got the ball rolling on the Judges.

In today's context the idea is for Democrats to use the budgetary process to pass legislation, in doing so it will likely pass the legislation, but in doing so the Republicans would shut down all further Senate debate on any other legislation. It should be noted that the compromise was not needed until the the Mass election since Democrats had their 60 votes.

In either context it is unlikely to be used absent some kind of crisis.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 28, 2010 7:14 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

This is becoming a two-thread discussion; as I said in the other thread, I don't believe they'd ever go back to the old cumbersome filibuster, I don't see it as being in their interest.

Also, I believe in the law evolving. If it didn't we'd still have slavery and so many other absurd laws that were on the books. When something doesn't work anymore or isn't right, I believe in changing it to improve it. If the Republicans continue this the entire time they're in the minority, and Democrats use the same tactic when they're out of power--or even if they don't, but the next time the Republicans are in the minority they go right back to using it, then I see it as deleterious to the working of government.

I had no problem with the filibuster; it was when the Republicans flatly stated they would not vote for ANYTHING and would force a filibuster on virtually EVERYTHING that it became an unworkable procedure, to me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE