• 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!

Could Senate Dems Nuke the Filibuster?

RedAkston

Master of Shenanigans
Administrator
Moderator
Dungeon Master
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Oct 12, 2007
Messages
53,924
Reaction score
39,716
Location
MS Gulf Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Could Senate Dems Nuke the Filibuster? - FoxNews.com

Frustration with the legislative logjam in the Senate has reached a boiling-over point, and Senate Democrats intend to test the waters this week with a possible rare and controversial change in the chamber's governing rules that could limit the power of any individual senator to slow or stop debate on any particular nominee or piece of legislation.

Sen. Tom Udall, D-NM, elected in 2008, intends to offer a resolution on Wednesday, according to his spokeswoman, Marissa Padilla, that could result in a change not only in the filibuster rule, but also an elimination of a rule that allows any member to anonymously block, or hold, legislation or presidential appointees. The resolution would open the door, by a 51-vote majority, to alter the standing rules which govern filibusters and holds, among many other things.

And the Progressive's destruction of America and it's founders' intentions continues... When will it end?
 
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?

The filibuster only becomes effective under certain narrow circumstances, such as those that existed between January 2009 and December 2010. With the House in Rep hands the filibuster is no longer needed as a political tool. Sooner or later each party finds the use of the filibuster to be a useful mechanism. The Demos are just engaging in sour grapes. Some day they may be glad to have it available as an arrow in their quiver.
 
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?
Well they don't plan on 'nuking' the filibuster, as far as I've heard, there is no plan to change the 60-vote requirement. However, they want to change the filibuster back to what can be best described as the "Mr. Smith go to Washington" type filibuster. If you don't believe a bill shouldn't pass, fine, stand up in the Senate and argue hours on end against it.
 
The Founding Fathers intended to have a three-fifths supermajority in the Senate for every piece of banal legislation? Why didn't they write it into the Constitution, then?

The Founding Fathers wrote in the Constitution that both houses can develop their own rules. The Senate filibuster (Rule 22) is one of them.
 
The Founding Fathers intended to have a three-fifths supermajority in the Senate for every piece of banal legislation? Why didn't they write it into the Constitution, then?

I was actually referring to other things the Progressives have done to undermine the founders without actually listing them. Take the 17th amendment for example.
 
The Founding Fathers wrote in the Constitution that both houses can develop their own rules. The Senate filibuster (Rule 22) is one of them.

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...
 
I was actually referring to other things the Progressives have done to undermine the founders without actually listing them. Take the 17th amendment for example.

Well, that was a constitutional amendment. They included an amendment process because they recognized that attitudes might change. I don't think it makes much sense to criticize them for going against the Founding Fathers' wishes if they're actually amending the Constitution. Unless one assumes that the Founding Fathers had perfected governance for all time, way back in 1789.
 
Last edited:
Well, that was a constitutional amendment. They included an amendment process because they recognized that attitudes might change. I don't think it makes much sense to criticize them for going against the Founding Fathers' wishes if they're actually amending the Constitution. Unless one assumes that the Founding Fathers had perfected governance for all time, way back in 1789.

So do you believe that the 17th amendment was a good thing or a bad thing for the country?
 
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...
I am sorry if I gave you that impression, it's not.
Well, that was a constitutional amendment. They included an amendment process because they recognized that attitudes might change. I don't think it makes much sense to criticize them for going against the Founding Fathers' wishes if they're actually amending the Constitution. Unless one assumes that the Founding Fathers had perfected governance for all time, way back in 1789.
Exactly, and one must remember that passing a Constitutional Amendment is no simple task.
 
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:
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. :roll:
 
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. :roll:
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?
 
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.

Hugh_Akston said:
We will have Congress doing nothing but repealing bills every time the power changes hands. Won't that be good for the American people. :roll:

We got by for 200 years with only minimal use of the filibuster. I think we'll be OK.

101223-filibuster.gif
 
Last edited:
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?
 
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.
 
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...
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.

The United States was founded by the states as a republic. The states stupidly gave up the power that was given to them as a part of the Constitution with the 17th Amendment. No changing that.

There is no significant movement to restore the franchise to white, male, landowners... just a fringe group...

Nice try, though...
 
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.

I haven't seen this as an important issue since the early 19th century.......
 
The Senate was DESIGNED to be slow, hard to pass things through and easy for one Senator, one state, one small group to stand up and bring the whole thing to a crawl.

It's the art of compromise that was demanded with the Senate. I know people don't want to understand that, to consider it. It's so much easier to use the bumpersticker logic slogans of "What's wrong with 51 votes?"

What's wrong is that isn't what the Senate is about. Learn to understand WHY things are the way they are before you demand they change. So few here on either side understand the WHY. And we all know that if the Dem's managed to cahnge this, teh moment they are out of power and unable to Filibuster something that's near and dear to them all hell will break loose in the media. "The Tyrannical Republicans...."
 
The United States was founded by the states as a republic.

Yes but has since evolved into much more like a democracy where no one is left out. The US was founded on the back bone of slavery and only giving a limited number of the male white population the right to vote. Things change.

The states stupidly gave up the power that was given to them as a part of the Constitution with the 17th Amendment.

Stupidly? Hardly, the US became more democratic. This means changes and means you cant just have the few appoint the representation of the whole population.

No changing that.

And yet there are some on the right that DO want to get rid of the 17th. You can not deny that and many of those who want to repeal the 17th are in the Tea Party (and that does not mean all...). You can not deny this also.

From one part of the right wing media machine

» Restoring Federalism: Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment - Big Government

or from your favourite source

Republican Candidates Call for Repeal of Seventeenth Amendment - FoxNews.com

or from a local rag

2theadvocate.com | News | GOP candidates meet in debate — Baton Rouge, LA

Both, for instance, would repeal the constitutional amendment that allows direct election of U.S. senators.

or the tea party fav in Alaska Joe "the looser" Miller

44 - Joe Miller: I'd back repeal of 17th amendment

or even the most pathetic fanatical right wing Supreme Court judge is for it

Justice Scalia Says 17th Amendment Was Mistake For States Rights | MyFDL

and finally

Tea Party pushes 17th Amendment to the forefront - The Hill's Ballot Box

The issue has already made its way into the races of at least two of the GOP's top 10 House recruits, and one of them has already stumbled over it.

There is much more out there.. just google it.

There is no significant movement to restore the franchise to white, male, landowners... just a fringe group...

But there is a movement, which was my point .. and this movement is squared on the right of the political spectrum. It is also a view that has been floated by several members of this board.. all right wingers.

Nice try, though...

Try of what.. facts are facts.. all the smoke and mirrors from you and and other right wingers wont change the facts. And ignoring and denying it will not help at all.
 
The 17th Amendment WAS a mistake, and should be repealed.
 
Back
Top Bottom