Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 86

Thread: Could Senate Dems Nuke the Filibuster?

  1. #11
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Could Senate Dems Nuke the Filibuster?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hugh_Akston View Post
    So do you believe that the 17th amendment was a good thing or a bad thing for the country?
    Meh, I don't have an opinion on it. I'm just pointing out that it doesn't make much sense to criticize someone for going against the Founding Fathers' wishes if they're seeking to amend the Constitution, unless one assumes that the Founding Fathers were infallible. Likewise, I don't think it makes much sense to criticize someone for going against the Founding Fathers' wishes to solve a procedural problem (i.e. the filibuster) that's not part of the Constitution and has really only existed in its present for about 20 years.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 01-04-11 at 01:35 AM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  2. #12
    Global Moderator
    Silent Bob for President!

    RedAkston's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    33,831
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Could Senate Dems Nuke the Filibuster?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Meh, I don't have an opinion on it. I'm just pointing out that it doesn't make much sense to criticize someone for going against the Founding Fathers' wishes if they're seeking to amend the Constitution, unless one assumes that the Founding Fathers were infallible. Likewise, I don't think it makes much sense to criticize someone for going against the Founding Fathers' wishes to solve a procedural problem (i.e. the filibuster) that's not part of the Constitution and has really only existed in its present for about 20 years.
    So you're OK with the 51-vote rule being proposed? What if your "party" is not in control? We will have Congress doing nothing but repealing bills every time the power changes hands. Won't that be good for the American people.
    Welfare (Food Stamps, WIC, etc...) are not entitlements. They are taxpayer funded handouts and shouldn't be called entitlements at all. Social Security and Veteran's benefits are 'Entitlements' because the people receiving them are entitled to them. They were earned and paid for by the recipients.

  3. #13
    Sage
    pbrauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    11-27-15 @ 03:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,394

    Re: Could Senate Dems Nuke the Filibuster?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hugh_Akston View Post
    So you're OK with the 51-vote rule being proposed? What if your "party" is not in control? We will have Congress doing nothing but repealing bills every time the power changes hands. Won't that be good for the American people.
    Where does it say a 51-vote is being proposed? I realize the Fox News article says it could change, but this is just 'spin' from the supposed "fair and balanced" people. The Democrats believe the 60-vote threashold is valuable, and don't want to change it.

    BTW, the 17th amendment allows for the direct election of Senators, what is wrong with that?


  4. #14
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Could Senate Dems Nuke the Filibuster?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hugh_Akston View Post
    So you're OK with the 51-vote rule being proposed? What if your "party" is not in control?
    Sure, there are times when it would be more politically convenient to have a filibuster than others. But from an institutional standpoint the filibuster is very toxic. Every bill is now filibustered by default, so that nothing can get done without the support of 60 senators. When there is a large gap between what the majority wants and what the supermajority wants, you end up with situations like California, where there aren't enough votes to cut spending, there aren't enough votes to raise taxes, and so the problems of the state are unsolvable. A majority vote makes it vastly easier to solve these kinds of problems.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hugh_Akston
    We will have Congress doing nothing but repealing bills every time the power changes hands. Won't that be good for the American people.
    We got by for 200 years with only minimal use of the filibuster. I think we'll be OK.

    Last edited by Kandahar; 01-04-11 at 02:02 AM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  5. #15
    Global Moderator
    Silent Bob for President!

    RedAkston's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    33,831
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Could Senate Dems Nuke the Filibuster?

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    BTW, the 17th amendment allows for the direct election of Senators, what is wrong with that?
    You're perfectly OK with the states not having a voice in Washington? The founders set up the two seperate houses of Congress for a reason. The House of Representatives was the will of the people and the Senate was the will of the states. It was a built-in check and balance system to ensure that too much power could not be achieved. The 17th Amendment removed that from the equation and now special interests rule the landscape. States now have legislation forced down their throats and are pretty much powerless to stop it. Their only recourse is through the judicial system, as we are seeing with the Health Care bill. The founder's idea was that the power remained with the local and state governments not the federal government. It doesn't seem like it has been that way for a very long time (not in my lifetime anyway), does it to you?
    Welfare (Food Stamps, WIC, etc...) are not entitlements. They are taxpayer funded handouts and shouldn't be called entitlements at all. Social Security and Veteran's benefits are 'Entitlements' because the people receiving them are entitled to them. They were earned and paid for by the recipients.

  6. #16
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: Could Senate Dems Nuke the Filibuster?

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    Where does it say a 51-vote is being proposed? I realize the Fox News article says it could change, but this is just 'spin' from the supposed "fair and balanced" people. The Democrats believe the 60-vote threashold is valuable, and don't want to change it.

    BTW, the 17th amendment allows for the direct election of Senators, what is wrong with that?
    it imbalances the federalist system; tilting power heavily towards the central federal government.

    you know, that big One Thing that the founders kinda sorta told us Not To Do.

  7. #17
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: Could Senate Dems Nuke the Filibuster?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    OK...and the Democrats are proposing to CHANGE those rules. I'm failing to see how that goes against the intentions of the Founding Fathers...
    Aren't these the same Democrats who whined when the Republicans floated this idea when they were in the majority and the Democrats were using the filibuster to block action ad infintum??? Hypocrites...
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  8. #18
    Sage
    PeteEU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,092

    Re: Could Senate Dems Nuke the Filibuster?

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    BTW, the 17th amendment allows for the direct election of Senators, what is wrong with that?
    There is a growing movement among conservatives to have it removed. There is also a small group (and growing) to only allow land owners to vote and other anti-democratic proposals... all on the US right.
    PeteEU

  9. #19
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Could Senate Dems Nuke the Filibuster?

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    Aren't these the same Democrats who whined when the Republicans floated this idea when they were in the majority and the Democrats were using the filibuster to block action ad infintum??? Hypocrites...
    Actually now is probably a good time to get rid of the filibuster, because neither party would overwhelmingly benefit from it. Anything the Democrats tried to ram through the Senate on a party-line vote would be dead on arrival in the Republican-controlled House. Similarly, if the Republicans tried to pick off a few conservative Senate Democrats and ram through right-wing legislation, President Obama would veto it.

    This may be the best time to reform it precisely because the new Congress will need to work together anyway. The filibuster (at least as it's used now) is antithetical to a functional legislative branch.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  10. #20
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: Could Senate Dems Nuke the Filibuster?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Actually now is probably a good time to get rid of the filibuster, because neither party would overwhelmingly benefit from it. Anything the Democrats tried to ram through the Senate on a party-line vote would be dead on arrival in the Republican-controlled House. Similarly, if the Republicans tried to pick off a few conservative Senate Democrats and ram through right-wing legislation, President Obama would veto it.

    This may be the best time to reform it precisely because the new Congress will need to work together anyway. The filibuster (at least as it's used now) is antithetical to a functional legislative branch.
    Not disagreeing with you, but you don't honestly see the hypocrisy here?
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •