• 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!

Filibuster reform bill headed for Senate floor, faces uphill battle

Secret founding of abortion?

Secrets crap to give to illegal aliens?

Forcing people to buy health insurance?

Secret death penals just like in Britain?

It's just like single-payer.

donc, it's perfect for you!!!

Oh yes! PLEASE elaborate on this string of questions to me. This should be fun…if you don’t run off on me. :rofl
 
Unless I'm mistaken, the filibuster is not law, but rather a Senate Rule.

In addition, it's pointless to use the number of cloture votes in an attempt to draw any conclusions about the changing perception/use of the filibuster over time. First, the number of votes needed for cloture was 67 until 1975 when it was reduced to 60. Second, the reason the number has fluctuated so wildly in recent years is because whether or not something counts as a technical filibuster depends on whether a Senator brings something up for a procedural vote. Since 99% of the time everyone knows how the vote will turn out, Senators don't make cloture motions that they know will be doomed to failure unless they're doing so for political reasons.

Think about it - if you were part of the majority and wanted to paint the minority as "obstructionist" in order to score political points, what would you do? You'd take a few dozen bills that you know would never win a cloture vote and bring cloture motions on all of them. They all fail, and BOOM! You've got a ready-made headline: "Obstructionist Minority Filibusters Record Number of Bills."

The Senate's practice of allowing a "secret hold" largely stems from the Senate's tradition of congeniality. Senators are generally pretty nice to each other, unlike House members, so they cut each other some slack. If anyone really starts abusing it, it can be overruled by a cloture vote, just the same as the filibuster.

There's nothing wrong with either of these practices.
 
I believe it's a federal law, I've lived in many states and in not a single one could I buy insurance from another state.

If thats true, than it is stupid. Any insurance company should be able to sell across state lines, as long as that insurance meets the regulations of the state it is selling insurance in.
 
If thats true, than it is stupid. Any insurance company should be able to sell across state lines, as long as that insurance meets the regulations of the state it is selling insurance in.

Exactly. You should have lizards with an Australian accent selling health ins, you can save 15% in 15 min......or a stack of money with eyeballs singing some catchy phrase. It is true, health care is not an interstate business.
 
Unless I'm mistaken, the filibuster is not law, but rather a Senate Rule.

I heard this on the way home from work : Gregory Koger, Explaining The American Filibuster : NPR

From what this story tells me is that technically they can change the filibuster rule (or any rule) with a 51 vote majority if the proper procedures are followed. Personally I hope they don't because while they will get what they want passed, so will the conservatives, causing wild swings in legislation. The filibuster, while abused, does provide some stability.
 
If thats true, than it is stupid. Any insurance company should be able to sell across state lines, as long as that insurance meets the regulations of the state it is selling insurance in.
That's part of the issue. Insurance conpanies are licensed in states because of the laws in that state. An IL company would need to write its policy to follow all of the law of all of the states in sells insurance into. This may be impossible.
 
That's part of the issue. Insurance conpanies are licensed in states because of the laws in that state. An IL company would need to write its policy to follow all of the law of all of the states in sells insurance into. This may be impossible.

What, they write a policy for Maine, they sell a similar but compliant policy in Arizona...they pool the premiums and reduce the risk, and wind up competing with all the other insurance companies, which in a free market means the consumer pays less.
 
I heard this on the way home from work : Gregory Koger, Explaining The American Filibuster : NPR

From what this story tells me is that technically they can change the filibuster rule (or any rule) with a 51 vote majority if the proper procedures are followed. Personally I hope they don't because while they will get what they want passed, so will the conservatives, causing wild swings in legislation. The filibuster, while abused, does provide some stability.
I hate that because if that's true, wtf is a filibuster there for anyway? Is it like one of those artificial 'protections' that make people feel good but really don't do ****? like a debt ceiling?
 
I heard this on the way home from work : Gregory Koger, Explaining The American Filibuster : NPR

From what this story tells me is that technically they can change the filibuster rule (or any rule) with a 51 vote majority if the proper procedures are followed. Personally I hope they don't because while they will get what they want passed, so will the conservatives, causing wild swings in legislation. The filibuster, while abused, does provide some stability.

As I understand it, that is basically accurate, and your comment shows why it is highly unlikely that the rules will be changed. Sooner or later, republicans will take control of the senate again, and if democrats enact this rule change, then it will be, at that point, hurting them. Most realize this, and that is why I can find no evidence of much support for this proposal, which despite the misleading comments of a few, does not appear to be the desire of democrats in general.
 
That's part of the issue. Insurance conpanies are licensed in states because of the laws in that state. An IL company would need to write its policy to follow all of the law of all of the states in sells insurance into. This may be impossible.

Than it should be up to the states to get together and try to streamline regulation. The last thing we need is all insurance based out of the state with fewest consumer protections.
 
I hate that because if that's true, wtf is a filibuster there for anyway? Is it like one of those artificial 'protections' that make people feel good but really don't do ****? like a debt ceiling?

If there's anything the health care debate has proven, it's that the filibuster matters.

Yes, they could vote 51-49 to lift it (the "nuclear option"). But will they do so just to pass a bill as unpopular as it is huge? I think that they know that doing so would be political suicide beyond anything else.
 
Unless I'm mistaken, the filibuster is not law, but rather a Senate Rule.
This is correct -- it is a senate rule and may be changed whenever the senate feels like it.
 
Than it should be up to the states to get together and try to streamline regulation. The last thing we need is all insurance based out of the state with fewest consumer protections.
Well, that may be true -- but it does explain pretty well why you cannot currently do it.
 
This is correct -- it is a senate rule and may be changed whenever the senate feels like it.

This is true, although it has been challenged in the past. The US v. Ballin decision in the US Supreme Court did uphold the right of the Senate to change the rules to a simple majority. However, the tradition of the filibuster has been in the Senate so long, that to change it now would be political suicide.

The way I read this new rule change proposal, though, it is only the procedural filibuster that would be ended. The traditional filibuster would still exist, although using it could tie up the Senate, and prevent important and timely business from being conducted. This was the reason Rule 22 was enacted in the first place.
 
Let's call this what it is....Liberals don't like that they are being out played in the Congress so they do what liberals always do when they lose and have the power.....They change the rules. Harkin is a simpleton that doesn't even understand the Constitution.


j-mac
 
Let's call this what it is....Liberals don't like that they are being out played in the Congress so they do what liberals always do when they lose and have the power.....They change the rules.
No question about it.
 
Back
Top Bottom