• 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!

Barney frank: ‘god didn’t create the filibuster’

the part in charge always threatens to get rid of the filibuster, this is nothing new.
 
I whole-heartedly support at least limiting the filibuster, no matter which party is in charge.
 
the part in charge always threatens to get rid of the filibuster, this is nothing new.

frank's(house member where a simply majority rules) motives are so the democrats can pass every spending bill and law to suit themselves.

senate republicans wanted a change in the rule specifically because the democrats wouldn't allow an up or down vote for judicial nominees.

mtm1963
 
I think the filibuster is too important to ALL minorities, as that was what it was created for in the first place, and should be left just the way it is. It's a safe guard against the negative affects of "majority rule." Sure congressmen have used the filibuster to extend slavery and other bad legislation before but I think that's a small price to pay to ensure that the minority at least gets a voice.
 
frank's(house member where a simply majority rules) motives are so the democrats can pass every spending bill and law to suit themselves.

senate republicans wanted a change in the rule specifically because the democrats wouldn't allow an up or down vote for judicial nominees.

mtm1963

I see it as the same thing. Whoever is in charge doesn't like the minority meddling with what they want to do.
 
He wants to change the rules so that the GOP cannot filibuster the Healthcare Bill.

That's called the "Nuclear Option".

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option]Nuclear option - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

In reality, the filibuster is just an illusion, since at any time a simple majority can vote to overturn it. However, if the Democrats did that in this situation, it would be political suicide, so it's not likely to happen.
 
I think the filibuster is too important to ALL minorities, as that was what it was created for in the first place, and should be left just the way it is. It's a safe guard against the negative affects of "majority rule." Sure congressmen have used the filibuster to extend slavery and other bad legislation before but I think that's a small price to pay to ensure that the minority at least gets a voice.

No, the filibuster was created because there was a loophole in the rules. Someone changed to rule to remove speaking limits, and then someone took advantage of that much later. The founding fathers didn't intent a 60% threshold for legislation. I wouldn't mind it being like in the olden days where you had to get up and read the phone book for hours to keep it going, but the modern day version where anyone can just decide to not let things go to vote without any actual actions on their part... not good.
 
No, the filibuster was created because there was a loophole in the rules. Someone changed to rule to remove speaking limits, and then someone took advantage of that much later. The founding fathers didn't intent a 60% threshold for legislation.

True, but i think the 2/3 threshold is still a good idea nonetheless. It still acts as a safeguard.

I wouldn't mind it being like in the olden days where you had to get up and read the phone book for hours to keep it going, but the modern day version where anyone can just decide to not let things go to vote without any actual actions on their part... not good.

Truthfully, I don't see any difference whether they're reading from the dictionary or not saying anything at all. They're still accomplishing the same thing, which is wasting time. However, I think it saves everyone much more time if they didn't read from the dictionary, which is a little more efficient that way I suppose.
 
True, but i think the 2/3 threshold is still a good idea nonetheless. It still acts as a safeguard.
It's 3/5 not 2/3, by the way, but I don't think we need it in most cases. It's contrary to the concept of a representative republic.


Truthfully, I don't see any difference whether they're reading from the dictionary or not saying anything at all. They're still accomplishing the same thing, which is wasting time. However, I think it saves everyone much more time if they didn't read from the dictionary, which is a little more efficient that way I suppose.

Because filibusters back then weren't indefinite. Eventually you had to stop talking, one way or another.
 
If the libs use this to pass the grotesquely unpopular health bill, it may cost them every independent and 20 percent of Democrats forever more.
 
Because filibusters back then weren't indefinite. Eventually you had to stop talking, one way or another.

Really?

When the Democrats filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it was an indefinite tag team affair that was stopped only by LBJ recruiting Senate Republicans to stop it for him.

Filibusters on legislation are an essential element of the American legislative process.

The filibuster should not be used on presidential nominees, since the constitution does not require a supermajority vote on the Senate's "advise and consent" role, only in it's treaty ratification role.

Note that Harriet Meiers didn't need a filibuster to be kept out of office.
 
No, the filibuster was created because there was a loophole in the rules. Someone changed to rule to remove speaking limits, and then someone took advantage of that much later. The founding fathers didn't intent a 60% threshold for legislation. I wouldn't mind it being like in the olden days where you had to get up and read the phone book for hours to keep it going, but the modern day version where anyone can just decide to not let things go to vote without any actual actions on their part... not good.

There is no 60% threshold for legislation. At any time 51% can vote to eliminate that rule. They just run the risk of appearing to try to usurp power, especially when it's to pass something as unpopular as the health care bill.
 
If the libs use this to pass the grotesquely unpopular health bill, it may cost them every independent and 20 percent of Democrats forever more.

Don't count on that.

However, it's this kind of high-handed elitist strong arm **** that causes civil wars and riots.
 
After all the rule changes that have taken place regarding succession of the Massachussetts Senate seat, it should be obvious by now that Democrats want to change every rule possible to benefit themselves, regardless of what the country wants.

The filibuster exists to keep the majority party from passing legislation that is wildly unpopular- kind of like the healthcare bill (34% approval rating). Republicans are using it appropriately in this case.
 
There is no 60% threshold for legislation. At any time 51% can vote to eliminate that rule. They just run the risk of appearing to try to usurp power, especially when it's to pass something as unpopular as the health care bill.

The Senate has to vote to change the rules, is all.

How popular do you think a technical vote to bypass the traditions of the Senate will be when the only purpose is to pass a bill the majority of voters do not want, especially when today's election of Brown, if he wins, will be seen as a refutation of not only the Democrats' healthcare bill but a direct repudiation of the Messiah His Holy Self?
 
It's 3/5 not 2/3, by the way, but I don't think we need it in most cases. It's contrary to the concept of a representative republic.

I don't think it conflicts with us being a representative republic. That's because the "minority" can be a majority in certain states. An entire state, whose voice represents the "minority", is still part of that republic and an important part at that.

Now if it was a local thing, like a town or a city legislative house, I can see your point. But the national congress is too massive for that to matter much.

Because filibusters back then weren't indefinite. Eventually you had to stop talking, one way or another.

I'm not so sure about that. Unless the Senate invokes cloture, I'm pretty sure the filibuster can last as long as the bill is alive. Am I incorrect?
 
Why do politicians feel the need to politicize God?
 
It's 3/5 not 2/3, by the way, but I don't think we need it in most cases. It's contrary to the concept of a representative republic.




Because filibusters back then weren't indefinite. Eventually you had to stop talking, one way or another.
Senators were also chosen by State Legislatures to protect the interests of the States.
 
..because the democrats wouldn't allow an up or down vote for judicial nominees.

Republicans have done that also when they held power. Again, nothing new.
 
I whole-heartedly support at least limiting the filibuster, no matter which party is in charge.

The Dems threatened it against Bush Supreme Court nominees...for God's sake. No...we're going to line up filibuster artillery and launch it until Jan 2011. When the new Republican Senate is hopefully seated or at least enough Republicans exist to knife off any unworthy legislation such as this albatross they call a health care bill.

Wanna limit it, wait until we Pubs have a 60 seat majority. I'll be in your camp then.
 
Last edited:
Republicans have done that also when they held power. Again, nothing new.

Let's be fair though, we haven't done so with Supreme Court nominees. The infighting normal and expected for lower courts, game playing at this level weel established, nothing new.

Take a look at the process and votes for concerning those on the Supreme Court now. Look to Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, and Alito in comparison to Breyer, Ginsberg, and Sotomayor. The opposition and the process from Democrats wasn't the nothing new you speak to.

Filibuster Showdown Looms In Senate - washingtonpost.com

In an interview, Dean said Democratic unity is essential in the upcoming battle and that the party "absolutely" should be prepared to filibuster -- holding unlimited debate and preventing an up-or-down vote -- Bush's next high court nominee, if he taps someone they find unacceptably ideological.

Imagine if a Republican filibuster is now attempted against any Obama nominee now that Brown has been elected. Oh, the howling from liberal Dems would be deafening.

"A nominee more extreme than Judge Roberts would be unacceptable to the Democratic caucus," said Reid spokesman Jim Manley, who added later: "You could expect a major fight on the Senate floor."

Major fight on the Senate floor for Sotomayor would have seen accusations of racism and discrimination based on gender and God knows what else. Brand new policy by the Democrats here, Republicans....don't do this on the High Court, the Dem Presidents yielded to when choosing Justices. Not so with Republicans, we all remember the gang of 14 nonsense, again...Republicans don't do that.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom