Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 86

Thread: Could Senate Dems Nuke the Filibuster?

  1. #71
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:39 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,316
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Could Senate Dems Nuke the Filibuster?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Prof View Post
    there's no analysis there, silly

    just fact

    the PARTY OF NO took 66 house seats, biggest turnover since 38

    most state reps and legs in modern history

    10 gubs, 6 senate seats...

    you need the links?

    LOL!
    And you can show what this has to do with the filibuster somehow? Bet you can't, since that is not among the reason people mentioned voting about.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  2. #72
    Angry Former GOP Voter
    Fiddytree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    25,690

    Re: Could Senate Dems Nuke the Filibuster?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyroh View Post
    The founding fathers intended for the States to pick the Senators and the Lobbyists to keep their grubby hands off our representatives. Everything since then has been a mockery of democracy and nudging closer to fascism. Until we have representation again I'm for anything that slows down the lobbyists.
    Lobbyists are a fantastic tool for democracy. People are just too short-minded to consider all of the groups that agree with each individual issue who continue to bring awareness to their representatives the importance of a certain policy stance.
    Michael J Petrilli-"Is School Choice Enough?"-A response to the recent timidity of American conservatives toward education reform. https://nationalaffairs.com/publicat...-choice-enough

  3. #73
    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 Redress View Post
    And you can show what this has to do with the filibuster somehow? Bet you can't, since that is not among the reason people mentioned voting about.
    LOL!

    voters didn't SAY they preferred the filibusterers

    they just voted for em, en masse

    obstructing obama is us---and it really pays off

    meanwhile: Dems stymied on filibuster reform - Manu Raju - POLITICO.com

    party on, neophytes

  4. #74
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:39 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,316
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Could Senate Dems Nuke the Filibuster?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Prof View Post
    LOL!

    voters didn't SAY they preferred the filibusterers

    they just voted for em, en masse

    obstructing obama is us---and it really pays off

    meanwhile: Dems stymied on filibuster reform - Manu Raju - POLITICO.com

    party on, neophytes
    No, actually they did not vote on that. You made a claim, you could not back it up, so what do you do, but make the claim again like repeating it will make it true.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  5. #75
    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 Redress View Post
    actually they did not vote on that
    link?

    LOL!

  6. #76
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,301

    Re: Could Senate Dems Nuke the Filibuster?

    Quote Originally Posted by samsmart View Post
    Oh, I have researched the answer. And my research concludes that the Founding Fathers didn't inherently cherish the procedure of filibusters. Which makes me wonder why you even mention the Founding Fathers with regards to the filibuster.





    That is certainly the case. However, that does not defend the Senate's right to delay the passage of legislation using the filibuster.



    So please explain to everyone here why it's a good thing for one Senator to be able to hold the rest of the Senate hostage.
    Please let's hear all the details.
    "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.

  7. #77
    Politically Correct

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:33 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,850
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Could Senate Dems Nuke the Filibuster?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hugh_Akston View Post
    Could Senate Dems Nuke the Filibuster? - FoxNews.com



    And the Progressive's destruction of America and it's founders' intentions continues... When will it end?
    Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the fillibuster didn't exist during the time of the founding fathers? The checks were built into the branches and the bi-cameral legislative structure. Within the houses themselves, I'm pretty sure the rule was the majority decides, plain and simple.

    Udall has four proposals.
    Udall is considering four key proposals as part of the resolution he will offer. One would prevent filibusters to taking up a bill or on a nomination, although it will still allow filibusters to end debate on a bill. A second would eliminate so-called "secret holds" in which a senator can anonymously stall legislation or a nomination from coming to the floor. A third would require senators leading a filibuster stay on the floor and debate the issue during the entire filibuster. A fourth proposal from Udall is aimed at appeasing GOP concerns about being locked out of the process. It would require a certain number of amendments for the minority party for any bill being debated.
    Some Senate Democrats to try to change filibuster rules in new Congress – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

    I like 2 and 3, at least.

  8. #78
    Student Zyroh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-11 @ 02:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    237

    Re: Could Senate Dems Nuke the Filibuster?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Lobbyists are a fantastic tool for democracy. People are just too short-minded to consider all of the groups that agree with each individual issue who continue to bring awareness to their representatives the importance of a certain policy stance.
    I'm not advocating getting rid of lobbyists. I am advocating giving the people one house of congress where the most important relationship is between the congressman and his constituents. Right now we have a redundant bicameral congress where both houses advocate what their donors tell them. This is aristocracy for the benefit of those with access. So once again, if a weird rule serves to slow down that aristocracy I'm all for it.
    Last edited by Zyroh; 01-06-11 at 01:53 PM.

  9. #79
    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 ??? View Post
    Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the fillibuster didn't exist during the time of the founding fathers? The checks were built into the branches and the bi-cameral legislative structure. Within the houses themselves, I'm pretty sure the rule was the majority decides, plain and simple.
    Actually, the filibuster has existed from the start of the U.S. Constitution.

    However, it was not present in the Senate. Rather, it was used in the House of Representatives. The House originally allowed unlimited debate, but the first Congress only had 59-65 Representatives. This was changed in 1842, when the House expanded to 242 Representatives. Basically, the House simply grew too large to allow unlimited debate among it's members, which was why the rules in the House were changed.

    In the Senate, there's this information from Wikipedia:

    Filibuster in the United States Senate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    In 1789, the first U.S. Senate adopted rules allowing the Senate "to move the previous question," ending debate and proceeding to a vote. Aaron Burr argued that the motion regarding the previous question was redundant, had only been exercised once in the preceding four years, and should be eliminated. In 1806, the Senate agreed, recodifying its rules, and thus the potential for a filibuster sprang into being. Because the Senate created no alternative mechanism for terminating debate, the filibuster became an option for delay and blocking of floor votes.

    The filibuster remained a solely theoretical option until the late 1830s. The first Senate filibuster occurred in 1837. In 1841, a defining moment came during debate on a bill to charter the Second Bank of the United States. Senator Henry Clay tried to end debate via majority vote. Senator William R. King threatened a filibuster, saying that Clay "may make his arrangements at his boarding house for the winter." Other Senators sided with King, and Clay backed down.

    Contemporary scholars point out that in practice, narrow Senate majorities were able to enact legislation.[3] Majorities were able to prevail because of an implicit threat that the filibuster could itself be changed by majority rule if the minority used it to prevent, instead of merely to delay, votes on measures supported by a bare majority.
    So there were a few differences in how the filibuster was used originally and how it is used now:

    1) It was used in the House until the chamber became too large for unlimited debate.

    2) The Senate did not originally have the filibuster - rather, it came about because of a rule change that inadvertently led to the potential of a filibuster.

    3) The filibuster in the Senate was used very sparingly because if a minority caucus used it too often to stall legislation, a change in the rules to disallow the filibuster could be passed with a majority vote that could not itself be filibustered.

    4) The filibuster was used only to delay, not oppose, the passage of legislation.

    So arguments talking about how the Founding Fathers support the power of filibuster are pretty disingenuous considering how much the modern filibuster rules have changed compared to what the filibuster was originally. Especially so since nowhere in the Constitution does it state any support for the filibuster.
    Also, we need to legalize recreational drugs and prostitution.

  10. #80
    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 Zyroh View Post
    The founding fathers intended for the States to pick the Senators and the Lobbyists to keep their grubby hands off our representatives. Everything since then has been a mockery of democracy and nudging closer to fascism. Until we have representation again I'm for anything that slows down the lobbyists.
    How does a supermajority "slow down the lobbyists"? That assumes that lobbyists always prefer action to inaction. In some cases (telecom being a prime example), doing nothing is exactly what the lobbyists want, so a supermajority actually helps them.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 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
  •