• 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!

Filibuster reform bill headed for Senate floor, faces uphill battle

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) intends to introduce legislation that would take away the minority’s power to filibuster legislation.


Harkin has wanted to change the filibuster for years, but his move would come in the wake of Republican Scott Brown’s dramatic victory in Massachusetts. Brown’s victory cost Democrats their 60th vote in the Senate, and may have dealt a death blow to their hopes to move a massive healthcare overhaul. It could also limit President Barack Obama’s ability to move other pieces of his agenda forward.

Looks like Democrats are looking for another way to ram their health care bill through Congress. On the surface, it looks like a long shot, since modern Senate rules maintain that 67 votes are needed to change the rules. But there was a Supreme Court ruling in 1892 (US v. Ballin), that made only a simple majority necessary to accomplish it. Things could get really ugly here in the next few months, and possibly another case could be headed for the Supremes to decide.

Article is here.

I believe that, while Republicans are in the right at this time, it wasn't long ago (2005) that roles were reversed, and it was Republicans planning the "nuclear option" and Democrats screaming their heads off. The bad news is that Republicans are going to end up looking like hypocrites here, but the good news is so will the Democrats. LOL.

I also made a post on my blog about this.
 
Last edited:
Looks like Democrats are looking for another way to ram their health care bill through Congress. On the surface, it looks like a long shot, since modern Senate rules maintain that 67 votes are needed to change the rules. But there was a Supreme Court ruling in 1892 (US v. Ballin), that made only a simple majority necessary to accomplish it. Things could get really ugly here in the next few months, and possibly another case headed for the Supremes to decide.

Article is here.

I believe that, while Republicans are in the right at this time, it wasn't long ago (2005) that roles were reversed, and it was Republicans planning the "nuclear option" and Democrats screaming their heads off. The bad news is that Republicans are going to end up looking like hypocrites here, but the good news is so will the Democrats. LOL.

I also made a post on my blog about this.



The Dems are making a mistake by doing this for this sorry a** bill, its not worth the hit they will take.
 
Looks like Democrats are looking for another way to ram their health care bill through Congress. On the surface, it looks like a long shot, since modern Senate rules maintain that 67 votes are needed to change the rules. But there was a Supreme Court ruling in 1892 (US v. Ballin), that made only a simple majority necessary to accomplish it. Things could get really ugly here in the next few months, and possibly another case could be headed for the Supremes to decide.

Article is here.

I believe that, while Republicans are in the right at this time, it wasn't long ago (2005) that roles were reversed, and it was Republicans planning the "nuclear option" and Democrats screaming their heads off. The bad news is that Republicans are going to end up looking like hypocrites here, but the good news is so will the Democrats. LOL.

I also made a post on my blog about this.

I do not see any mention of much democratic support, so I doubt this will go very far. It's not a move by democrats in general as best I can tell, but of a few democrats.
 
And I believe this is the very reason Obama & Co. have changed thier stance on rushing the bill. They wish to wait and see if they can change the rules so that they can get it passed.
 
Personally I think the 60 vote rule is being abused. Now it is the Republicans that is taking it to a new art, and before that it was the Democrats. From what I have read the Republicans have doubled the amount of filibusters in this Congress compared to the last Congress and that is a lot. Basically means the Senate gets nothing done.

So looking at it from a governance point of view, the filibuster rules are quite damaging.

The rule should be scrapped and replaced by new rules that cant be abused in the same way. As it stands now, one senator can block legislation forever if he wants too.... and that is unacceptable.

Of course this will just turn into another partisan crap fest as usual but hey one can hope that we remain civil and non partisan.
 
Personally I think the 60 vote rule is being abused. Now it is the Republicans that is taking it to a new art, and before that it was the Democrats. From what I have read the Republicans have doubled the amount of filibusters in this Congress compared to the last Congress and that is a lot. Basically means the Senate gets nothing done.

So looking at it from a governance point of view, the filibuster rules are quite damaging.

The rule should be scrapped and replaced by new rules that cant be abused in the same way. As it stands now, one senator can block legislation forever if he wants too.... and that is unacceptable.

Of course this will just turn into another partisan crap fest as usual but hey one can hope that we remain civil and non partisan.

That is the way the American government works. I always get a kick out of Europeans explaining how they think the American government should be. I suppose you want our government to be socialist, and the people subjects like the rest of the Europeans.
 
If they do this just to pass the health care bill, they will lose their majority in November without question. And I think that they know that.
 
Democrats would be wise to dump Harry Reid now and elect a new majority leader.
 
Democrats would be wise to dump Harry Reid now and elect a new majority leader.

You really really should take the time to read the article before posting your usual one line thoughless comments. It would save you a ton of embarrassment.

source article said:
More recently, Democrats used the filibuster when they were in the minority, while Republicans criticized the procedural rule. Democrats have increasingly criticized it in this Congress, though Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) are on record supporting its existence.

Now care to explain why democrats would be smart to dump Reid over this when he opposes eliminating filibusters?
 
That is the way the American government works.

Yes that is how it works.. now, but not 20 years or 30 years ago. Back then by all reports filibusters were rare as hell. Now they are almost the norm.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e8/Cloture_Voting,_U.S._Senate,_1947_to_2008.jpg

If this is remotely accurate then it is a massive rise over the last few decades.

I always get a kick out of Europeans explaining how they think the American government should be.

Where do I state how it should be? All I am saying that the filibuster as it is today is grinding the US legislative process to a halt on so many fronts because of personal or partisan pives, often totally unrelated to the legislation at hand.

And because of this I suggest a different form of some kind that cant be used in the manner the filibuster is being used today.

I have no problem with a temporary block being put on legislation based on the merits of the legislation, but as it stands now we have Senators blocking everything from nominations to legislation based on personal issues often that have nothing to do with the legislation.

But regardless the blocking should be temporary so that more discussion can be done and maybe a common position found instead of totally blocking a vote on the darn thing.. that is so undemocratic that it is almost sickening. That one senator can block critical nominations, legislation is a dictatorship of the minority of one to the extreme.

I suppose you want our government to be socialist, and the people subjects like the rest of the Europeans.

Why do American's always resort to this supposed insult to divert attention away from the topic? pathetic attitude. Every country have different ways of doing things, some good some bad. The filibuster is one of the only bad things I can come up with in the US legislative system. I love the idea of two houses of Congress have to agree on legislation and the principle of getting a bi-partisan support.. we Europeans could learn about that. Often our legislation is very one sided.
 
The healthcare bill proves the need for the filibuster, because the People did not want it, yet without the threat of filibuster the bill would be law today.
 
Looks like Democrats are looking for another way to ram their health care bill through Congress. On the surface, it looks like a long shot, since modern Senate rules maintain that 67 votes are needed to change the rules. But there was a Supreme Court ruling in 1892 (US v. Ballin), that made only a simple majority necessary to accomplish it. Things could get really ugly here in the next few months, and possibly another case could be headed for the Supremes to decide.

Article is here.

I believe that, while Republicans are in the right at this time, it wasn't long ago (2005) that roles were reversed, and it was Republicans planning the "nuclear option" and Democrats screaming their heads off. The bad news is that Republicans are going to end up looking like hypocrites here, but the good news is so will the Democrats. LOL.

I also made a post on my blog about this.


I think the dems are going to screw themselves on this.All it does is send the message is that it is okay when we do something but not you,so we are going to change the rules to suit us.Republicans were against the whole filibuster when they were in the majority and the democrats were for it when they were the minority but now roles are reversed. Its just like that **** with Massachusetts it was all good that the people got to replace a leaving senator when a republican(despite being a lib) but when the democrats were in control they seemed to be bothered by the fact the people could pick a replacement. This is one of the reasons why we need to end the two part monopoly.
 
Last edited:
I think the dems are going to screw themselves on this.All it does is send the message is that it is okay when we do something but not you,so we are going to change the rules to suit us.Republicans were against the whole filibuster when they were in the majority and the democrats were for it when they were the minority but now roles are reversed. Its just like that **** with Massachusetts it was all good that the people got to replace a leaving senator when a republican(despite being a lib) but when the democrats were in control they seemed to be bothered by the fact the people could pick a replacement. This is one of the reasons why we need to end the two part monopoly.
Where were the Dems when they shafted Liberman?
 
I think they should let it die. Healthcare reform, but not this ugly duckling.

I agree. I hated this health bill. The Democrats sold themselves off and compromised and compromised to get a "filibuster proof" 60 votes...and the result was a watered down POS that had little if anything to do with reform.

The Democrats would be wise to go back and put together a strong healthcare reform bill with a public option. Personally, I would love to see the Democrats pass a single-payer health bill.

Let the Republicans and Blue Dogs filibuster it and the American people will understand exactly WHO it was the prevented us from having real healthcare reform in this country.

I would rather stand and principle and fall.....then compromise and succeed in passing a piece of s--- legislation without principles.
 
Fillibuster reform = changing the rules because we suddenly do not like them.
:roll:
 
The only reform the filibuster requires is the restriction that it be applied only to legislative matters, not matters of presidential appointment.

So what's happening now, basically, is that the losing team can't win under present rules so they're changing the rules in the middle of the game.
 
Personally I think the 60 vote rule is being abused.
Tell us:
How is the fillibuester supposed to be used, why is it supposed to be used that way, and how does its current use not qualify?
 
I believe that, while Republicans are in the right at this time, it wasn't long ago (2005) that roles were reversed, and it was Republicans planning the "nuclear option"

You mean when the Left was filibustering the appointment of American justices to the courts by Bush?

I don't see where filibusters are justified in that circumstance.
 
If they do this just to pass the health care bill, they will lose their majority in November without question. And I think that they know that.
Hmm...

Dems pass a change on the fillibuster, precluding its use once they become the minority.

THEN who will they blame?
 
Where do I state how it should be? All I am saying that the filibuster as it is today is grinding the US legislative process to a halt on so many fronts because of personal or partisan pives, often totally unrelated to the legislation at hand.

And because of this I suggest a different form of some kind that cant be used in the manner the filibuster is being used today.

I have no problem with a temporary block being put on legislation based on the merits of the legislation, but as it stands now we have Senators blocking everything from nominations to legislation based on personal issues often that have nothing to do with the legislation.

And then there's real issues that shouldn't pass because they're ****ed up socialist trash, like the Messiah's healthcare takeover scam.

But regardless the blocking should be temporary

Why? So the majority trying to harm the nation merely have to wait?

That one senator can block critical nominations, legislation is a dictatorship of the minority of one to the extreme.

Never happened on important legislation yet. When the socialists, ie Democrats, filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Democrat president was able to go outside his party to the Americans to get a work around that ended the filibuster.

Just because THIS president is soooo incompetent, just because the Democrats are soooo corrupt, and both are soooo arrogant that the people themselves have decided they don't want what the Democrats are selling is not an indictment of process that has served this nation well for over 200 years.

England worships a Queen, so don't be babbling about how "undemocratic" you think things are in the Land of the Oppostion to Socialism.
 
Yea, its very convoluted. :doh

It's not complicated.

The problem with the health care industry in this country is the government.

Get the government out of the way, things improve.

It's true for literature, it's true for whiskey, it's true for sex, why shouldn't that be true for health care?
 
It's not complicated.

The problem with the health care industry in this country is the government.

Get the government out of the way, things improve.

It's true for literature, it's true for whiskey, it's true for sex, why shouldn't that be true for health care?

que?

The problem is the profit incentive behind people's health that leads to poor health coverage and sometimes exploitative practices like pre-existing condition denial
 
I think Harkin et al. are wrong on this one.

While republicans are abusing the system, changing a rule this like for short term gain has the strong possibility of biting the democrats in the backside when the republicans have a majority. Also since it is obviously motivated for the wrong reasons, I am pretty sure it will be unpopular with the voters.

I think if anything, they should just change the rule back to the person filibustering is forced to actually filibuster and not simply file a motion.

Baring that, a filibuster should last at most three months and during that time, politicians should be forced to fly home and hear from their constituents about how they really feel about an issue.
 
Back
Top Bottom