Filibuster in the Senate -- Would you favor its elimination?

Filibuster in the Senate -- Would you favor its elimination? (Full Version)

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

Message

cloudboy -> Filibuster in the Senate -- Would you favor its elimination? (1/25/2013 2:36:45 PM)
The New Yorker had an article about how the filibuster rule can be changed with the support of 51 Senators and the cooperation of the US Vice President. This means that if the Democrats wanted to eliminate or change the current filibuster rule in the Senate, they could. Would your vote yes or no on this issue? Currently most "controversial" legislation in the senate requires 60 votes. How would you modify the rule?

mnottertail -> RE: Filibuster in the Senate -- Would you favor its elimination? (1/25/2013 2:38:16 PM)
you gotta be there to filibuster. live and in person.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Filibuster in the Senate -- Would you favor its elimination? (1/25/2013 2:55:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail you gotta be there to filibuster. live and in person. That isn't a rule already? Really? That would be hilarious to have a monitor up in front of the microphone, and someone simply turning the monitor off. LMAO!!

mnottertail -> RE: Filibuster in the Senate -- Would you favor its elimination? (1/25/2013 3:04:56 PM)
nope they can get their time reserved for another and dont have to be there doing the actual fight, and that is a problem. Then they can do shifts, with only one or two there.

DomKen -> RE: Filibuster in the Senate -- Would you favor its elimination? (1/25/2013 3:29:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail you gotta be there to filibuster. live and in person. That isn't a rule already? Really? That would be hilarious to have a monitor up in front of the microphone, and someone simply turning the monitor off. LMAO!! All the stalling the GOP did in this last Senate term was done by two mechanisms. The anonymous hold where the minority leader simply announced that some member of his caucus was placing a hold on the appointemnt of that individual. Second was the threat to deny cloture, IOW the minority leader said if the bill under consideration went to debate that he would deny unanimous consent to end the deabte and instead would force a cloture vote which requires 60 votes to pass. The reforms proposed by the progressive Democrats was to eliminate the anonymous hold and to require what is being called the talking filibuster, i.e. A Senator that wanted to delay legislation would have to take the floor during debate and hold it by talking as long as the Senator could (Mr. Smith Goe to Washington style). We got an end to anonymous holds but Reid caved on the talking filibuster.

Level -> RE: Filibuster in the Senate -- Would you favor its elimination? (1/25/2013 3:35:15 PM)
Yes.

HarryVanWinkle -> RE: Filibuster in the Senate -- Would you favor its elimination? (1/25/2013 4:00:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail you gotta be there to filibuster. live and in person. I agree with this.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: Filibuster in the Senate -- Would you favor its elimination? (1/25/2013 4:13:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy The New Yorker had an article about how the filibuster rule can be changed with the support of 51 Senators and the cooperation of the US Vice President. This means that if the Democrats wanted to eliminate or change the current filibuster rule in the Senate, they could. Would your vote yes or no on this issue? Currently most "controversial" legislation in the senate requires 60 votes. How would you modify the rule? Mandate that anyone working a filibuster, must drink a 64 ounce Coca Cola every 30 minutes.

HarryVanWinkle -> RE: Filibuster in the Senate -- Would you favor its elimination? (1/25/2013 6:35:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy The New Yorker had an article about how the filibuster rule can be changed with the support of 51 Senators and the cooperation of the US Vice President. This means that if the Democrats wanted to eliminate or change the current filibuster rule in the Senate, they could. Would your vote yes or no on this issue? Currently most "controversial" legislation in the senate requires 60 votes. How would you modify the rule? Mandate that anyone working a filibuster, must drink a 64 ounce Coca Cola every 30 minutes. Well, that would insure that the capital never gets moved back to New York.

jlf1961 -> RE: Filibuster in the Senate -- Would you favor its elimination? (1/25/2013 6:42:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy The New Yorker had an article about how the filibuster rule can be changed with the support of 51 Senators and the cooperation of the US Vice President. This means that if the Democrats wanted to eliminate or change the current filibuster rule in the Senate, they could. Would your vote yes or no on this issue? Currently most "controversial" legislation in the senate requires 60 votes. How would you modify the rule? Mandate that anyone working a filibuster, must drink a 64 ounce Coca Cola every 30 minutes. Nope bad idea. Every 45 minutes they have to eat two taco bell burrito supremes and before they start they have to take a dose of laxatives. And make sure a cleaner service for their clothes is not one of the perks of being in the senate or house.

dcnovice -> RE: Filibuster in the Senate -- Would you favor its elimination? (1/25/2013 6:51:20 PM)
quote: Every 45 minutes they have to eat two taco bell burrito supremes and before they start they have to take a dose of laxatives. Sparkling laxatives, I would hope. [:)]

jlf1961 -> RE: Filibuster in the Senate -- Would you favor its elimination? (1/25/2013 6:52:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: Every 45 minutes they have to eat two taco bell burrito supremes and before they start they have to take a dose of laxatives. Sparkling laxatives, I would hope. [:)] I caught that in your other post.

kdsub -> RE: Filibuster in the Senate -- Would you favor its elimination? (1/25/2013 8:02:17 PM)
No

kdsub -> RE: Filibuster in the Senate -- Would you favor its elimination? (1/25/2013 8:18:28 PM)
The filibuster is rule would be parctically impossible to change...why...because the minority party would filibuster the rule change but that is not what is important here. The filibuster is an important political ploy that forces the electorate, through their vote, to validate a position that is too close to an even split among voters. Otherwise legislation that could be passed by a simple majority without the filibuster would not have strong enough support of voters to last. This can change in the next voting cycle when one party gains or looses seats. Then the legislation in question has been filtered through the political process and there will be a mandate of the voters. Butch

jlf1961 -> RE: Filibuster in the Senate -- Would you favor its elimination? (1/25/2013 8:27:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub The filibuster is rule would be parctically impossible to change...why...because the minority party would filibuster the rule change but that is not what is important here. The filibuster is an important political ploy that forces the electorate, through their vote, to validate a position that is too close to an even split among voters. Otherwise legislation that could be passed by a simple majority without the filibuster would not have strong enough support of voters to last. This can change in the next voting cycle when one party gains or looses seats. Then the legislation in question has been filtered through the political process and there will be a mandate of the voters. Butch So we add to it, either the filibuster starting individual drinks a 64oz softdrink every 30 minutes, OR before he starts he takes a laxative and every 45 minutes he eats two taco bell burrito supremes.

cloudboy -> RE: Filibuster in the Senate -- Would you favor its elimination? (1/25/2013 8:34:57 PM)
This kind of posting isn't all that funny (it's not making me laugh) and its not furthering the discussion either. -------- mnottertail's point is well taken because the minority party can simply leave Washington DC and pay no price in time or commitment to jamming up / blocking legislation.

jlf1961 -> RE: Filibuster in the Senate -- Would you favor its elimination? (1/25/2013 8:45:00 PM)
Look, the filibuster rule in the senate is what has kept anything from being done the last 4 years. It is a stupid rule and should be abolished, which it wont, therefore something should be done to keep it from tying up senate sessions. I am sorry you fail to see the humor in this. I have been watching this shit go on since I was 10 or 11 when I took an interest in the news. I am soon going to be 52. It is nothing more than a tool for one party or another to delay or end debate on a bill.

kdsub -> RE: Filibuster in the Senate -- Would you favor its elimination? (1/25/2013 9:40:33 PM)
quote: Look, the filibuster rule in the senate is what has kept anything from being done the last 4 years I don't know what side of the political spectrum you fall into but I will bet you would sing a different tune if say a stringent gun control law requiring all, so called assault weapons, to be turned in with no compensation... And could be passed by a simple majority. We need things to slow down when the country is so equally divided... Laws should only be passed that have support of both sides. If not you get the kind of mess we are having with the new healthcare law. We had a filibuster proof congress then that did not represent the views of 50 percent of the public. And look what we have now…a fucking mess. Filibusters have a place and a good reason that is why it is there and not repealed. Butch

BamaD -> RE: Filibuster in the Senate -- Would you favor its elimination? (1/26/2013 12:01:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub quote: Look, the filibuster rule in the senate is what has kept anything from being done the last 4 years I don't know what side of the political spectrum you fall into but I will bet you would sing a different tune if say a stringent gun control law requiring all, so called assault weapons, to be turned in with no compensation... And could be passed by a simple majority. We need things to slow down when the country is so equally divided... Laws should only be passed that have support of both sides. If not you get the kind of mess we are having with the new healthcare law. We had a filibuster proof congress then that did not represent the views of 50 percent of the public. And look what we have now…a fucking mess. Filibusters have a place and a good reason that is why it is there and not repealed. Butch When the Republicans suggested this it was Facist

MasterJaguar01 -> RE: Filibuster in the Senate -- Would you favor its elimination? (1/26/2013 5:49:13 AM)
The Filibuster is an aberration. It was NEVER intended by the founding fathers. It was loophole, inadvertently created by Aaron Burr's objection to the Senate's ability to force the end of debate. In 1806, the Senate rules were changed to allow a mechanism for infinite debate. This, of course was further bastardized in modern times, to a Senator simply require a cloture vote. It is a dark stain on our democracy and a shameful tactic. Every time I hear Republicans say "you know the drill, we need 60 votes here in the Senate", I ask them politely to resign. They have no idea what it means to be a U.S. Senator. quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy The New Yorker had an article about how the filibuster rule can be changed with the support of 51 Senators and the cooperation of the US Vice President. This means that if the Democrats wanted to eliminate or change the current filibuster rule in the Senate, they could. Would your vote yes or no on this issue? Currently most "controversial" legislation in the senate requires 60 votes. How would you modify the rule?

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875