• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Democrats Poised to Limit Filibusters, Angering G.O.P.

Re: Showdown Nears in Senate Over Filibusters Change

wbcoleman said:
Yep, this time it's different. And just wat until McConnel and Reid change places!
Click to expand...

if nothing changes to the fillibuster then mcconnel will suffer the same pain that he has inflicted upon the senate democrat's for 4 years.
 
Re: Showdown Nears in Senate Over Filibusters Change

Unitedwestand13 said:
if nothing changes to the fillibuster then mcconnel will suffer the same pain that he has inflicted upon the senate democrat's for 4 years.
Click to expand...

Just the way Bill Frist did in Dubya's time!
 
Re: Showdown Nears in Senate Over Filibusters Change

wbcoleman said:
Back in 2005 Harry Reid felt otherwise. I wonder why.
Click to expand...

Because Harry Reid is a wimp?
 
Re: Showdown Nears in Senate Over Filibusters Change

I say we change the rules so that they have to hold their breath to filibuster. I want to see congressmen turning blue in the face and passing out on live television.

No, I'm not bitter at all about how the gerontocrats have ****ed over the country while gerrymandering themselves into unaccountability.
 
Re: Showdown Nears in Senate Over Filibusters Change

Reid strikes me as a probable child molester.
 
Re: Showdown Nears in Senate Over Filibusters Change

Drake McHugh said:
Reid strikes me as a probable child molester.
Click to expand...

Free Republic forums are that way ---->
 
Re: Showdown Nears in Senate Over Filibusters Change

Deuce said:
I think what should happen is that the filibuster needs to go back to being an actual filibuster. That whole thing about standing up before congress and actually "running out the clock" by speaking on the subject? Yeah, that went away ages ago. Just need one guy sitting down in an air-conditioned room to say "I object" when a call for a vote comes up.
Click to expand...

I do not have a problem with that, but I think that won't change much. I think since the big problem here is presidential appointments being delayed, alter the rule to eliminate the 60 votes for cloture on those issues alone. I think a president should be able to appoint his choice of people, no matter who that president is, on a bare majority.
 
Re: Showdown Nears in Senate Over Filibusters Change

The filibuster is beyond idiotic in the current form. The idiotic thing is, that it only requires a 51 votes to get something passed, but 60 votes to be allowed to vote.. that is beyond twisted and frankly anti-democratic. The sick thing is, that one or two people have the power to keep stuff off the table even though a large majority of Senators agree on it. And that power has been abused many times, especially by the GOP the last 5 years, and especially from certain far right wing GOP wackos and often for personal gain. It has to stop.
 
Re: Showdown Nears in Senate Over Filibusters Change

PeteEU said:
The filibuster is beyond idiotic in the current form. The idiotic thing is, that it only requires a 51 votes to get something passed, but 60 votes to be allowed to vote.. that is beyond twisted and frankly anti-democratic. The sick thing is, that one or two people have the power to keep stuff off the table even though a large majority of Senators agree on it. And that power has been abused many times, especially by the GOP the last 5 years, and especially from certain far right wing GOP wackos and often for personal gain. It has to stop.
Click to expand...

Yet we have many posters on this forum that see the same "nonsense" in Texas as completely justified. You don't that think the politcal party invloved makes any difference do you? Obviously all bills/appointments should simply be rubber stamped if one party gets a one seat advantage - that is the "correct" solution is it not? Floor debate and actually reading bills is a silly waste of time, an efficient gov't simply passes everything proposed by the majority party. ;)
 
Re: Showdown Nears in Senate Over Filibusters Change

Redress said:
I do not have a problem with that, but I think that won't change much. I think since the big problem here is presidential appointments being delayed, alter the rule to eliminate the 60 votes for cloture on those issues alone. I think a president should be able to appoint his choice of people, no matter who that president is, on a bare majority.
Click to expand...

So no debate should be allowed for these appointments at all? Simply read the appointtee's name and take a vote?
 
Re: Showdown Nears in Senate Over Filibusters Change

ttwtt78640 said:
So no debate should be allowed for these appointments at all? Simply read the appointtee's name and take a vote?
Click to expand...

Did not say nor imply that. No clue where you came up with that. I thin k a 60 vote cloture vote is the only thing to change, with cloture on a bare majority instead, and only for presidential appointments.
 
Re: Showdown Nears in Senate Over Filibusters Change

Redress said:
Did not say nor imply that. No clue where you came up with that. I thin k a 60 vote cloture vote is the only thing to change, with cloture on a bare majority instead, and only for presidential appointments.
Click to expand...

Which amounts to exactly the same thing if the president's party has 50 Senate votes.
 
Re: Showdown Nears in Senate Over Filibusters Change

ttwtt78640 said:
Which amounts to exactly the same thing if the president's party has 51 votes.
Click to expand...

No. There would still be the potential for debate. There would still be confirmation hearings.
 
Re: Showdown Nears in Senate Over Filibusters Change

Redress said:
No. There would still be the potential for debate. There would still be confirmation hearings.
Click to expand...

Yet only in the committees, but still likely to have a rubber stamp effect on those brought to the Senate floor for a vote. Cloture merely means end the debate. Skipping that step means that the same 50 vote total may both end floor debate and approve the appointment.

Judicial Nominations
 
Re: Showdown Nears in Senate Over Filibusters Change

ttwtt78640 said:
Yet only in the committees, but still likely to have a rubber stamp effect on those brought to the Senate floor for a vote. Cloture merely means end the debate. Skipping that step means that the same 50 vote total may both end floor debate and approve the appointment.

Judicial Nominations
Click to expand...

A cloture cote is a vote to end debate. Any issues arising from my proposed rule change could be handled by a simple requirement for a minimum time for debate before the number of votes required for cloture drops to 51.
 
Re: Showdown Nears in Senate Over Filibusters Change

Redress said:
A cloture cote is a vote to end debate. Any issues arising from my proposed rule change could be handled by a simple requirement for a minimum time for debate before the number of votes required for cloture drops to 51.
Click to expand...


That rule change requires a super majority to end debate on it as well - does it not? ;)
 
Re: Showdown Nears in Senate Over Filibusters Change

ttwtt78640 said:
That rule change requires a super majority to end debate on it as well - does it not? ;)
Click to expand...

Honestly I am not sure, but would think it would. I did not mean that my suggestion was likely to happen, only that things are broken as it and needs to be fixed. It is most apparent with judicial nominations where neither side wants to confirm appointments made by the other side, leading to a large number of vacant seats. The problem is not republicans, it is not democrats, it is all of them. Personally, I think the bar should be pretty high to vote down a presidential nominee. Tax cheat, sure, vote him down, don't like his ideology, well then work harder next presidential election.
 
Re: Showdown Nears in Senate Over Filibusters Change

ttwtt78640 said:
Yet we have many posters on this forum that see the same "nonsense" in Texas as completely justified.
Click to expand...

Difference is that she actually did the deed.. she stood there hour after hour and not breaking the very strict rules of the Texas legislative on filibustering. No GOPer has done that in donkey years in the US senate. And in the end her filibustering was for nothing, because the GOP just called an emergency session and forced the bill.. Not even the US senate can do that.. and considering this when you reread what you wrote :)

You don't that think the politcal party invloved makes any difference do you?
Click to expand...

Of course not, because the Dems used the same stupid rules during Bush and so on.

The only person who has any kind of veto in Government should be the President.. not a single or two senators in the Senate, and that is exactly what is happening now. Certain GOP Senators have time and time again filibustered or threatened to do so, and stopped nominations for posts to actual legislation to go through.

You live in a Republic where the individual Senator often has more power than the whole freaking Congress.... is that right?

Obviously all bills/appointments should simply be rubber stamped if one party gets a one seat advantage - that is the "correct" solution is it not?
Click to expand...

That is democracy. And the GOP has a stop gap in the House.. so what is the problem?

One can flip it the other way and say.. is it fair that 59 out of 100 Senators agree, but because they cant get 60 votes to allow a vote on the issue, then the bill dies?

And in the case of nominations you can have 99 senators agreeing and 1 being a pissy moron to hold up critical appointments to government jobs... brilliant system!... NOT!

Floor debate and actually reading bills is a silly waste of time, an efficient gov't simply passes everything proposed by the majority party. ;)
Click to expand...

No it aint, but that is again not what is happening. Even with the filibuster and unlimited holds on nominations and bills, they still are not reading the bills.. BOTH sides do this.

No, the filibuster should stay, but it should require that the Senators actually do the filibustering on the floor .. hour after hour.
 
Re: Showdown Nears in Senate Over Filibusters Change

The filibuster needs to stay. If nothing else, it prevents the Senate from quietly passing many objectionable bills and creates public attention to whatever is being filibustered. It also slows down the increasingly erratic and authoritarian activities that Congress has been exhibiting in recent years, which cannot be a bad thing.
 
Re: Showdown Nears in Senate Over Filibusters Change

Fisher said:
I am no fan of the democrats in the Senate, but what people call the "nuclear option" others call the "Constitutional option". Independent of who employs it, I think the 60 votes to pass rule violates the Constitution which is explicit as to when a supermajority is required.
Click to expand...

I don't believe it's a constitutional violation. I believe the Constitution explicitly leaves the rules of the senate up to them.

I never did like the filibuster rule, any variation of it, and I'd be glad to see it go. Republicans who speak out against ending it just better not have been around during the Bush years when republicans were screaming for an end to the filibuster rule themselves.
 
Re: Showdown Nears in Senate Over Filibusters Change

ksu_aviator said:
Right, because Wendy's filibuster didn't undermine the will of the people of Texas. I guess it is only bad when the opposing view does it.
Click to expand...

I said "when it's used solely as a tool for undermining the president" or the opposing political party.
 
Re: Showdown Nears in Senate Over Filibusters Change

Morrigi said:
The filibuster needs to stay. If nothing else, it prevents the Senate from quietly passing many objectionable bills and creates public attention to whatever is being filibustered. It also slows down the increasingly erratic and authoritarian activities that Congress has been exhibiting in recent years, which cannot be a bad thing.
Click to expand...

Again this is not about bills, it is about nominations.
 
Re: Showdown Nears in Senate Over Filibusters Change

poweRob said:
Because Harry Reid is a wimp?
Click to expand...

No, because back then he was in the minority. Party leaders in the minority LOVE the filibuster rule.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom