Barney frank: ‘god didn’t create the filibuster’

the makeout hobo said:

I whole-heartedly support at least limiting the filibuster, no matter which party is in charge.

Click to expand...

Well, the filibuster is limited - by the rule that stops one by a vote of 60 senators.

the makeout hobo said:

I whole-heartedly support at least limiting the filibuster, no matter which party is in charge.

Click to expand...

Erod said:

If the libs use this to pass the grotesquely unpopular health bill, it may cost them every independent and 20 percent of Democrats forever more.

Click to expand...

If that were ironclad, it might be worth it, as we could go back in, reverse and phase-out a whole lotta BS. Including Bahney Fwanks dweam.

Problem is, new generations don't learn from history. That's how we get The Carter's, Clinton's, and Obama's. People forget or aren't educated about how damaging the Dems ideas are.

With Clinton we got lucky. Hillary screwed up so badly the R's swept everything in 1994, and The Perjurer, looking out for himself was pragmatic enough to adopt much of The Contract with America. His perjury tied his hands for the most part during much of his second term, another stroke of luck.

.

MrVicchio said:

Breitbart.tv Barney Frank: ‘God Didn’t Create the Filibuster’

He wants to change the rules so that the GOP cannot filibuster the Healthcare Bill.

Click to expand...

1) They can do that now, by running the bill back through under reconciliation. The Republicans did that several times under Bush.

2) Under Bush, changing the rules on filibusters was known as the nuclear option, which they threatened to use.

I don't want to see Obamacare passed any more than you do, but Republicans have no cause to gripe if Dems end up using or threatening the same tactics now as Republicans used or threatened before. I was against those methods when Bush was president, and at the time, predicted that the Democrats would do the same, if Republicans supported using these tactics. Looks like I was right. The chickens are now coming home to roost, and Republicans will look like grade A hypocrites if they complain now. Of course, so will the Dems for using the same tactics they complained about when Bush was president.

the makeout hobo said:

It's 3/5 not 2/3, by the way, but I don't think we need it in most cases. It's contrary to the concept of a representative republic.

Click to expand...

It is contrary to majority rule, but not representative republic... they are not necessarily synonymous. Although I think Republicans are just shills for corporatism, I don't believe it is a good thing to simply make the minority party irrelevant. As much as 49% or your citizens could end up being virtually unrepresented in our system. I would hardly call that 'representative democracy'.

Because filibusters back then weren't indefinite. Eventually you had to stop talking, one way or another.

Click to expand...

It is not a perfect way to make sure the minority is represented, but it is a way, and it is really the only way in our system.

It is unfortunate that we have political parties at all. The founders didn't intend for those to form either, but they did. The filibuster as a tactic is valuable in a two party system to make certain that more people's views are represented.

Dezaad said:

It is contrary to majority rule, but not representative republic... they are not necessarily synonymous. Although I think Republicans are just shills for corporatism, I don't believe it is a good thing to simply make the minority party irrelevant. As much as 49% or your citizens could end up being virtually unrepresented in our system. I would hardly call that 'representative democracy'.




It is not a perfect way to make sure the minority is represented, but it is a way, and it is really the only way in our system.

It is unfortunate that we have political parties at all. The founders didn't intend for those to form either, but they did. The filibuster as a tactic is valuable in a two party system to make certain that more people's views are represented.

Click to expand...

If the founding fathers didn't intend for political parties to form, why did they form them?

the makeout hobo said:

If the founding fathers didn't intend for political parties to form, why did they form them?

Click to expand...

If I remember correctly, it was a race to the bottom sort of thing. You don't want people you disagree with to have more political power than you to make laws. If your opponents band together with like minded people, and you don't, then you lose.

Also, when I have read about the party's histories, I get the sense that they only gradually became as partisan as they are today. I do think that is another thing the founders didn't anticipate.

In any case, supermajorities are required for certain things in all sorts of representative governments. In California, for example, a supermajority is required when passing the budget.

Dezaad said:

If I remember correctly, it was a race to the bottom sort of thing. You don't want people you disagree with to have more political power than you to make laws. If your opponents band together with like minded people, and you don't, then you lose.

Also, when I have read about the party's histories, I get the sense that they only gradually became as partisan as they are today. I do think that is another thing the founders didn't anticipate.

In any case, supermajorities are required for certain things in all sorts of representative governments. In California, for example, a supermajority is required when passing the budget.

Click to expand...

And it is one of the things that is ****ing up our state. It's the main reason we have to wait most of the year to get our budget most of the time. It also removes all accountability from the system, since the minority can claim to not have made the bill, and the majority can claim that it was fouled up by all the concessions to the minority.