What's wrong with the Senate?

What's wrong with the Senate? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Lordandmaster -> What's wrong with the Senate? (9/14/2010 4:39:07 AM)
Here's an interesting article with a distinct point of view: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/sep/30/specter-haunting-senate/?pagination=false What's wrong with the Senate are the filibuster/cloture rules. This one takes a patent anti-Republican line, so I'm sure plenty of you are just going to dismiss it as so much bullshit, but I post it here nonetheless. The author is, after all, more accomplished than your typical Collarme poster. Oh, and a warning for the attention-deficient: The article is long and complex. So like "OBAMA SUX" is just going to mean that you didn't bother to read it.

brokedickdog -> RE: What's wrong with the Senate? (9/14/2010 6:34:37 AM)
In response to the post heading and specifically not the article my snap answer is: It is composed entirely of politicians.

FirmhandKY -> RE: What's wrong with the Senate? (9/14/2010 12:48:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: brokedickdog In response to the post heading and specifically not the article my snap answer is: It is composed entirely of politicians. And the majority are Democrats! [:D] Firm

Lucylastic -> RE: What's wrong with the Senate? (9/14/2010 12:49:53 PM)
not for long!!!!

pahunkboy -> RE: What's wrong with the Senate? (9/14/2010 1:32:09 PM)
Ok- with Specter- understand that his last re-election was close. He has been out of touch for quite some time.

servantforuse -> RE: What's wrong with the Senate? (9/14/2010 1:36:58 PM)
Spector lost because he has been a left leaning moderate for some time now. Not a good place to be in this election cycle.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: What's wrong with the Senate? (9/14/2010 1:37:17 PM)
Cloture should return to a 2/3 vote, not just 60%. Thats the only problem with filibusters.

Archer -> RE: What's wrong with the Senate? (9/14/2010 2:50:47 PM)
I wonder how many of those calling for filibuster reform now will be calling for it in another 6 months? And to give equal time how many screaming that no change is needed now will be calling for reform once the balance of power in the Senate has shifted? I would be good with changing cloture votes limiting them so they do not effect appointments. I thought President Bush's appointments deserved up or down votes, and I believe President Obama's appointments deserve the up or down vote as well. But on matters of law I find the gridlock of cloture rules to be a god send forcing moderation on the majority party regardless of which party that is. Have I had things I was for thwarted due to this Yep sure have and was angry about it and cussed and fussed. When my head ooled down I recognized that it wa my ox this time and that the principle still held, cloture gridlock forcing moderation is in fact more often than not a GIFT. Even when it gets in the way of things I would like to see done.

FirmhandKY -> RE: What's wrong with the Senate? (9/14/2010 2:54:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic not for long!!!! Most likely not. [:D] However, I'm not sure that it will end up being much improved. [X(] Personally, I believe that a 2/3rd's majority should be required to pass any law, or any appointment. Gridlock is good. Firm

mnottertail -> RE: What's wrong with the Senate? (9/14/2010 3:21:19 PM)
I have got to say that while my president was getting his dick sucked, and there was no clear majority party or ideology in the congress, the american dream was pretty good, nobody was fucking with shit, trying to make laws or measures or foisting shitty ideas on the public mein.

Malkinius -> RE: What's wrong with the Senate? (9/15/2010 12:34:50 AM)
{fast reply} Greetings all.... The Senate is working just the way the founding fathers set it up to work. The house goes by majority rules. The senate was designed to have a minority be able to stop things if they felt it was necessary. That specifically meant that a minority of one could filibuster as long as he could to hold things up and try to convince others that his way was right. The parties in and out of control keep trying to change things so it favors them. I prefer to keep it the way it is and let the pendulum swing on who controls the Senate. Be well all.... Malkinius

wittynamehere -> RE: What's wrong with the Senate? (9/15/2010 12:38:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Malkinius The Senate is working just the way the founding fathers set it up to work. If that were true, the founding fathers were sadistic, cruel, treacherous bastards that should have been hanged before they could do any further damage to the world. Luckily, it's not!

Lordandmaster -> RE: What's wrong with the Senate? (9/15/2010 5:05:03 AM)
Then you didn't read the article, which pretty well destroys the myth you're repeating. Beyond that--for those who want to return to a 2/3 majority: remember that that was 2/3 of the senators PRESENT AT ANY GIVEN TIME, not 2/3 of the entire body. In many cases today, 2/3 would be less than 60. quote: ORIGINAL: Malkinius The Senate is working just the way the founding fathers set it up to work. The house goes by majority rules. The senate was designed to have a minority be able to stop things if they felt it was necessary. That specifically meant that a minority of one could filibuster as long as he could to hold things up and try to convince others that his way was right. The parties in and out of control keep trying to change things so it favors them. I prefer to keep it the way it is and let the pendulum swing on who controls the Senate.

tropicalhoney -> RE: What's wrong with the Senate? (9/15/2010 6:10:50 AM)
For me to agree with the author's premise that more extensive use of the cloture motion signals more obstructionism. I would have to see a comparison of what types of things have provoked the motions. It could be that the more conservative side is less likely to introduce legislation that would make change and therefore is less likely to have cloture invoked. quote: ORIGINAL: Archer I would be good with changing cloture votes limiting them so they do not effect appointments. I thought President Bush's appointments deserved up or down votes, and I believe President Obama's appointments deserve the up or down vote as well. But on matters of law I find the gridlock of cloture rules to be a god send forcing moderation on the majority party regardless of which party that is. Have I had things I was for thwarted due to this Yep sure have and was angry about it and cussed and fussed. When my head ooled down I recognized that it wa my ox this time and that the principle still held, cloture gridlock forcing moderation is in fact more often than not a GIFT. Even when it gets in the way of things I would like to see done. I agree with Archer about appointments, and, yes, concerning things about which I was concerned being constrained. However, the country rarely changes as much as the shift in the party in control would indicate, so I think some mechanism for slowing things down helps.

Malkinius -> RE: What's wrong with the Senate? (9/15/2010 2:03:02 PM)
Greetings..... quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Then you didn't read the article, which pretty well destroys the myth you're repeating. Beyond that--for those who want to return to a 2/3 majority: remember that that was 2/3 of the senators PRESENT AT ANY GIVEN TIME, not 2/3 of the entire body. In many cases today, 2/3 would be less than 60. Correct...I didn't. I went back to my poli-sci and American history classes. I just read the article. It says the, in effect, that the Democrats want to pass good things and the Republicans are stopping them due to current Senate rules so they want to change the rules in their favor. Through in a lot of history of how things have been including confirmation of my statement that the Senate was originally intended to slow down the House in making changes. Not all parts of how either house of Congress has developed was either in the original creators intention or plans. The Senate was supposed to be the elite members of society, the best and most intelligent people who would have the best interests of the country at heart instead of following the mobs who controlled the House through direct elections. This is why Senators were appointed, not elected. Now it is all about pleasing the mobs but they get to do it for a longer time than members of the house. That still makes it a check and a slow down which I consider a good thing. It was based on the English House of Lords rather than the parliament after all. Be well.... Malkinius

Lordandmaster -> RE: What's wrong with the Senate? (9/15/2010 2:34:50 PM)
From the article in question: quote: James Madison acknowledged that “more than a majority” might be justifiable in limited instances but argued that requirements for a supermajority were open to a decisive objection: In all cases where justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule; the power would be transferred to the minority. Alexander Hamilton echoed this view in Federalist No. 22: “To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision) is…to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser number.” He added that such a provision would “destroy the energy of government,” handing outsized power to “an insignificant, turbulent or corrupt junto.” You have heard of James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, right? So let's please set aside the notion that the Founding Fathers wanted 60% majorities for every piece of legislation.

THELADY -> RE: What's wrong with the Senate? (9/15/2010 9:14:02 PM)
3 read the whole article, it was indeed well written. In myth one the founders wanted supermajority. then he says "its true this was the intention"....he blows the whole thesis right there. myths 2,3_and 4 some believed it some didn't....duhhh there will never be 100% agreement! he goes on to whine that the pres with a super majority should have been able to do more if only it were not for those pesky republicans! someone should tell him that the republicans ALL voted no on the health care. the dems had the majority, the reason it took all that time was because they had to bribe many to get their votes! and then the true crux of the story, he tells of hawkins "scheme,..... shell game" to get around the supermajority. ( don't try to put icing on the cake, come right out and call a scheme a scheme, that's cool) and he calls the unions, enviormental groups and other liberals to mobilize accordingly. And being a good little parrot, Lordandmaster put it out there for other libs to fall in line with yeah, overall, a good article for someone with no analytical skills and for those who ca only parrot what ever thay are told. praise the founders who did this, had they not we would in all likelyhood already be a socialist country.

Malkinius -> RE: What's wrong with the Senate? (9/16/2010 7:45:02 PM)
Greetings.... quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster You have heard of James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, right? So let's please set aside the notion that the Founding Fathers wanted 60% majorities for every piece of legislation. Yep...read some but certainly not all of their writings. Are you going to quote the other founders who said otherwise? How about Jefferson who stated his opinion that the government should be overthrown every 20 years? Also, go back and read what I wrote. I never said anything about supermajorities for every piece of legislation. I said they wanted the Senate to slow down the passage of laws and to act as a check on the passions of the House. Also, they were not the only people to have a say in how the government was structured. What did everyone else say or do you simply not know or only pick and choose those few who might prove your point. Perhaps a minority opinion at the time? Don't try to change what I said to what you want me to have said. I won't allow you to do that. Be well.... Malkinius

Owner59 -> RE: What's wrong with the Senate? (9/16/2010 7:49:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: brokedickdog In response to the post heading and specifically not the article my snap answer is: It is composed entirely of politicians. And the majority are Democrats! [:D] Firm Which is the will of America........ Which is what bothers you.......

FirmhandKY -> RE: What's wrong with the Senate? (9/16/2010 8:30:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: brokedickdog In response to the post heading and specifically not the article my snap answer is: It is composed entirely of politicians. And the majority are Democrats! [:D] Which is the will of America........ Which is what bothers you....... Nope. Pendulums swing, owner, pendulums swing .. And reality always has a way of biting ideologues in the ass ... [:D] Firm

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875