Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 86

Thread: Could Senate Dems Nuke the Filibuster?

  1. #41
    Sage
    samsmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,316
    Blog Entries
    37

    Re: Could Senate Dems Nuke the Filibuster?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hugh_Akston View Post
    You are thinking way too small here. Sure, removing the filibuster may work now, but how about 2 years from now when Republicans most likely re-gain control of the WH and the Senate? What about if in 10 years the Democrats regain control of the WH and both houses? What works today won't work down the road. Do you really want a Republican controlled WH, Senate and House? I know I don't. I've always said it was a bad idea when one "side" has control of both. Early on in the Bush administration and the first two years of the Obama administration have proven that for all to see. If you remove the filibuster, whoever is in power can just ram through whatever legislation they want to. Is this what anyone really wants as a whole? I can see the case being made when "their side" is in control, but what about when the pendulum swings the other way?
    If what you oppose is one political party having control of the White House, the House, and the Senate, then the filibuster is still no adequate check against the political party in power. Rather, other methods can be done.

    Personally, I think we should start doing what the UK does and have a "shadow executive" - that is a group of those in the opposition party that shadows the President and the Cabinet Secretaries to criticize and offer alternatives. So, for example, the Shadow Secretary of the Treasury would be the chosen person from the opposition party in the White House to criticize the Secretary of the Treasury and offer alternatives on fiscals and monetary policies.

    I think such a thing would be a healthy change to our current system.
    Also, we need to legalize recreational drugs and prostitution.

  2. #42
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    Re: Could Senate Dems Nuke the Filibuster?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Prof View Post
    how did us presidents from ronald reagan to bill clinton manage to pass legislation when opp's held the houses?

    how does chubby chris christie manage in trenton?

    the answer---leadership

    hint---you gotta pick issues the public actually LIKES

    meanwhile:



    Democrats stymied on filibuster reform - Manu Raju - POLITICO.com

    surprised?
    I don't understand, you mean filibusters are good now? You mean party of NO is good NOW?
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  3. #43
    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
    I'm talking about on a regular basis, not isolated examples that you can find. Nor am I talking about Ancient Rome. For God's sake.
    The filibuster as it is currently used in the United States is relatively new. This is the first time in history when every bill, no matter how petty, is filibustered by default.


    I think you are ignoring a very important consideration. In the old days, you actually had to stand on the floor and speak to effectuate your filibuster. You actually had to physically do it, leading to the absurdity of a Senator reading from the phone book to maintain the filibuster. Now, one merely has to announce the intent to filibuster rather than actually physically stand in the well. That makes a filibuster easier to maintain without blocking other business that has to be done. So, while there are more filibusters today than there were four decades ago, such filibusters have a far reduced impact on the workings of the Senate than they did in that bygone era...
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  4. #44
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: Could Senate Dems Nuke the Filibuster?

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    You mean party of NO is good NOW?
    ask the voters who directed the greatest turnover in the house of reps since 1938
    Last edited by The Prof; 01-04-11 at 08:31 PM.

  5. #45
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: Could Senate Dems Nuke the Filibuster?

    bottom line---if the party in power were pushing policies approved by the american people, those who filibuster against em would be PUNISHED

    not REWARDED

    politics 101

    you don't have to change the RULES to make govt work

    but apparently its incumbent on LEADERSHIP to undertake some kinda makeover

    kinda like when the president suddenly came out for tax cuts for the rich as the right thing to do

  6. #46
    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 samsmart View Post
    Actually, the states didn't give up the power - the people took it away from them.

    This was because near the time of the 17th Amendment, state legislatures kept getting deadlocked in appointing Senators. Republicans and Democrats in the state legislature would filibuster attempts for the other side to make any appointments. They did this for their political parties. The people got tired of being screwed over by partisan politicians and not being represented in Congress, so they adopted the 17th Amendment.

    It's not the people's fault that the state legislatures weren't responsible with the power, and so it is understandable why that power was taken away from them.
    The amendment was ratified by state legislatures, not by popular vote within each of the states...
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  7. #47
    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
    I think you are ignoring a very important consideration. In the old days, you actually had to stand on the floor and speak to effectuate your filibuster. You actually had to physically do it, leading to the absurdity of a Senator reading from the phone book to maintain the filibuster. Now, one merely has to announce the intent to filibuster rather than actually physically stand in the well. That makes a filibuster easier to maintain without blocking other business that has to be done. So, while there are more filibusters today than there were four decades ago, such filibusters have a far reduced impact on the workings of the Senate than they did in that bygone era...
    I disagree. I think they're a lot worse now than they were before. In fact, if they were willing to go back to the old reading-from-a-phone-book style of filibuster, that would be a big improvement. It would mean A) that every piece of trivial legislation wouldn't be filibustered by default, and B) the majority party could eventually get their way if they considered it important enough - they'd just have to outlast the speaker(s). If the opposition party regularly held up the business of Congress for days at a time to protest, say, the Water Quality Investment Act, they'd look pretty silly on C-SPAN and the media would want to know why. And even aside from the public embarrassment, the opposition probably just wouldn't care enough about most bills to personally camp out in Congress and speak for hours on end.

    It's true that filibusters don't waste as much floor time today...but I wouldn't say they have a far reduced impact on the workings of the Senate, unless you measure impact by the amount of time Congress spends on routine business rather than the amount of meaningful legislation they pass.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 01-04-11 at 09:20 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  8. #48
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:55 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,496

    Re: Could Senate Dems Nuke the Filibuster?

    Quote Originally Posted by samsmart View Post
    If what you oppose is one political party having control of the White House, the House, and the Senate, then the filibuster is still no adequate check against the political party in power. Rather, other methods can be done.

    Personally, I think we should start doing what the UK does and have a "shadow executive" - that is a group of those in the opposition party that shadows the President and the Cabinet Secretaries to criticize and offer alternatives. So, for example, the Shadow Secretary of the Treasury would be the chosen person from the opposition party in the White House to criticize the Secretary of the Treasury and offer alternatives on fiscals and monetary policies.

    I think such a thing would be a healthy change to our current system.
    I have an even better idea: let's stop trying to mirror what the goddamn Europeans are doing. They've had a thousand years to get it right and still can't. That's the reason that United States even exists, because the Europeans were cocking up the works.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  9. #49
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: Could Senate Dems Nuke the Filibuster?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    I think they're a lot worse now than they were before.
    if so, it's not the gop the voters held to blame

    evidently

  10. #50
    Sage
    Renae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Antonio Texas
    Last Seen
    10-23-17 @ 10:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    38,972
    Blog Entries
    15

    Re: Could Senate Dems Nuke the Filibuster?

    Quote Originally Posted by samsmart View Post
    If the Senate isn't about 51 votes, then why didn't the Founding Fathers just make it so that a 2/3 majority was needed to pass all bills rather than 50% +1?
    Perhaps it would be best if you researched the answer to your question instead of waiting for me to post something you can dismiss, that way you get to understand it from them, rather then my repeat of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by samsmart View Post
    Also, the filibuster isn't the only thing that keeps the Senate slow and deliberative. One is that they are elected to 6-year terms. Another is that they have pretty lengthy debates. In fact, the filibuster is a debate in the Senate, but every debate requires a 2/3 majority in order to end the debate. This is vastly different from the House of Representatives, in which most debates take up 2 minutes and the rules on debates is very strict.
    You are so close to answering your own question, and you don't even realize it! The HOUSE is allowed to be quicker, by design.

    Quote Originally Posted by samsmart View Post
    So getting rid of the filibuster won't stop the Senate from being slow. It'll just prevent one senator from holding up legislation.
    And that's exactly why the Filibuster is needed, and should never be done away with.
    Climate, changes. It takes a particularly uneducated population to buy into the idea that it's their fault climate is changing and further political solutions can fix it.



Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... 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
  •