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

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

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

Message

LizDeluxe -> RE: Filibuster in the Senate -- Would you favor its elimination? (1/26/2013 7:36:37 AM)
Keep the filibuster but you have to be there to do it. I would have said the same thing in November 1994.

Yachtie -> RE: Filibuster in the Senate -- Would you favor its elimination? (1/26/2013 7:49:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Look, the filibuster rule in the senate is what has kept anything from being done the last 4 years. Then perhaps we need more of it, given the trend of what has been done.

jlf1961 -> RE: Filibuster in the Senate -- Would you favor its elimination? (1/26/2013 10:06:52 AM)
Personally, I would be in favor of a system that would force the two parties to compromise, but considering the stubbornness of both parties, nothing short of a bunch of men and women standing in both chambers with pump shotguns loaded with rocksalt would work.

kdsub -> RE: Filibuster in the Senate -- Would you favor its elimination? (1/26/2013 10:13:29 AM)
How about a provision where a particular party, with party donated funds, can pay for a special election on a particular issue say once a year when a filibuster has reached a predetermined length of time? If once a year it could not be abused and with the expensive cost paid by donations it would also have to be a very important issue for the party to request it...But... it would be a way to break a filibuster on important legislation. Butch

BamaD -> RE: Filibuster in the Senate -- Would you favor its elimination? (1/26/2013 10:18:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 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? Democrats say it too, do you want them to resign?

BamaD -> RE: Filibuster in the Senate -- Would you favor its elimination? (1/26/2013 10:19:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LizDeluxe Keep the filibuster but you have to be there to do it. I would have said the same thing in November 1994. Agreed

BamaD -> RE: Filibuster in the Senate -- Would you favor its elimination? (1/26/2013 10:22:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Look, the filibuster rule in the senate is what has kept anything from being done the last 4 years. Then perhaps we need more of it, given the trend of what has been done. Post Ok city measures like the fillibuster stopped bills that would have made the patriot act look like anarchy. It is there to force consenses and protect us from mobocracy

MrRodgers -> RE: Filibuster in the Senate -- Would you favor its elimination? (1/26/2013 10:28:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail 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. There are no such requirements. All any single sen. need do is 'invoke' cloture.' That means no filibuster (talking on the senate floor) no need to explain yourself or be identified. ('filibuster' from the golf course) The concept of cloture is a vote to bring what is in fact a non-existing filibuster...to a close. I invoke cloture and now it takes 60 votes to bring a bill to a floor vote or what was in the past known as ending a filibuster but now one that...does'nt even really exist.

jlf1961 -> RE: Filibuster in the Senate -- Would you favor its elimination? (1/26/2013 10:41:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub How about a provision where a particular party, with party donated funds, can pay for a special election on a particular issue say once a year when a filibuster has reached a predetermined length of time? If once a year it could not be abused and with the expensive cost paid by donations it would also have to be a very important issue for the party to request it...But... it would be a way to break a filibuster on important legislation. Butch Butch, you know that a simple solution like that is far too easy for the politicians to agree to. I mean for them it has two problems. 1) It makes perfect sense 2) It would involve the citizens of the United States in the law making process.

cloudboy -> RE: Filibuster in the Senate -- Would you favor its elimination? (1/26/2013 4:45:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 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. Thanks for circling back to the subject. The point is 51 votes plus Joe Biden can change the Senate rules. So, the Democrats have the option to change the rule. Requiring a super majority in the Senate, a counter-majoritarian body to begin with, is highly undemocratic and it gives way too much power to the less populated states of the country.

FatDomDaddy -> RE: Filibuster in the Senate -- Would you favor its elimination? (1/26/2013 5:22:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Look, the filibuster rule in the senate is what has kept anything from being done the last 4 years. No.... it;s the treat of a filibuster and it been more like 10-12 years. (of course in the last 4, The Senate still has not figured out how to pass a budget but that's another thread) The Filibuster should stay in place. What needs to happen is eliminate the free pass of the Filibuster threat and make them actually conduct them.

DomKen -> RE: Filibuster in the Senate -- Would you favor its elimination? (1/26/2013 5:37:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy The Filibuster should stay in place. What needs to happen is eliminate the free pass of the Filibuster threat and make them actually conduct them. I think this is what most everyone outside the Senate wants. Why the actual Senators cannot agree to this is a mystery.

HarryVanWinkle -> RE: Filibuster in the Senate -- Would you favor its elimination? (1/26/2013 6:35:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub How about a provision where a particular party, with party donated funds, can pay for a special election on a particular issue say once a year when a filibuster has reached a predetermined length of time? If once a year it could not be abused and with the expensive cost paid by donations it would also have to be a very important issue for the party to request it...But... it would be a way to break a filibuster on important legislation. Butch This, of course, would require a constitutional amendment. Since no such amendment could possibly get by either house of Congress or either major political party, how do you propose to get it passed? A Constitutional Convention? If not called for by the Congress, it would have to be called for by the states, again, all of whose legislatures are controlled by the major parties.

Moonhead -> RE: Filibuster in the Senate -- Would you favor its elimination? (1/27/2013 1:00:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD It is there to force consenses and protect us from mobocracy No, dear. It's there to allow an outvoted minority to block legislation.

kdsub -> RE: Filibuster in the Senate -- Would you favor its elimination? (1/27/2013 2:57:21 PM)
quote: This, of course, would require a constitutional amendment Why...it is a procedure matter...Unless I am mistaken legislation...bond issues etc. can be placed on a national ballot...could be wrong though. Butch

DomKen -> RE: Filibuster in the Senate -- Would you favor its elimination? (1/27/2013 4:51:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub quote: This, of course, would require a constitutional amendment Why...it is a procedure matter...Unless I am mistaken legislation...bond issues etc. can be placed on a national ballot...could be wrong though. Butch There is no provision in the Constitution or in federal law for national ballot measures of any sort.

MasterJaguar01 -> RE: Filibuster in the Senate -- Would you favor its elimination? (1/27/2013 6:14:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: LizDeluxe Keep the filibuster but you have to be there to do it. I would have said the same thing in November 1994. Agreed Just curious.... Why on earth would we keep it? What value is provided by keeping a loophole that was inadvertently created to allow one person to block the US Senate from doing what we elected them to do? (Which is legislate)

DomKen -> RE: Filibuster in the Senate -- Would you favor its elimination? (1/27/2013 8:42:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: LizDeluxe Keep the filibuster but you have to be there to do it. I would have said the same thing in November 1994. Agreed Just curious.... Why on earth would we keep it? What value is provided by keeping a loophole that was inadvertently created to allow one person to block the US Senate from doing what we elected them to do? (Which is legislate) If one or more Senators are opposed enough to a bill to stand for hours on end speaking in the Senate chamber then I'm willing to allow them to delay passage of a bill. Perhaps they might convince some other Senators and stop passage of a genuinely bad law.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Filibuster in the Senate -- Would you favor its elimination? (1/28/2013 5:41:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: LizDeluxe Keep the filibuster but you have to be there to do it. I would have said the same thing in November 1994. Agreed Just curious.... Why on earth would we keep it? What value is provided by keeping a loophole that was inadvertently created to allow one person to block the US Senate from doing what we elected them to do? (Which is legislate) If one or more Senators are opposed enough to a bill to stand for hours on end speaking in the Senate chamber then I'm willing to allow them to delay passage of a bill. Perhaps they might convince some other Senators and stop passage of a genuinely bad law. He musta never seen "12 Angry Men" or "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." IMO, part of legislating is preventing legislation deemed "bad." Getting 50 Senators + VP to pass a bill certainly isn't guaranteeing the "will of the people" being done. Despite not having had a math class in 9 months, I'm not so rusty to think that 100 - 1 < 60.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.152344E-02