Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

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


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Filibuster in the Senate -- Would you favor its elimination? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Filibuster in the Senate -- Would you favor its eli... - 1/26/2013 7:36:37 AM   
LizDeluxe


Posts: 687
Joined: 10/2/2011
Status: offline 		Keep the filibuster but you have to be there to do it. I would have said the same thing in November 1994.

_____________________________

While is there no liberal talk radio? There are at least five conservative talk radio shows available over the air every day in the radio market I live in. Why does the liberal message fail to attract listeners?

(in reply to cloudboy)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: Filibuster in the Senate -- Would you favor its eli... - 1/26/2013 7:49:06 AM   
Yachtie


Posts: 3593
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
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.


_____________________________

“We all know it’s going to end badly, but in the meantime we can make some money.” - Jim Cramer, CNBC

“Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: Filibuster in the Senate -- Would you favor its eli... - 1/26/2013 10:06:52 AM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline 		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.

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to Yachtie)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: Filibuster in the Senate -- Would you favor its eli... - 1/26/2013 10:13:29 AM   
kdsub


Posts: 12180
Joined: 8/16/2007
Status: offline 		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

< Message edited by kdsub -- 1/26/2013 10:16:09 AM >

_____________________________

Mark Twain:

I don't see any use in having a uniform and arbitrary way of spelling words. We might as well make all clothes alike and cook all dishes alike. Sameness is tiresome; variety is pleasing

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: Filibuster in the Senate -- Would you favor its eli... - 1/26/2013 10:18:23 AM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
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?

(in reply to MasterJaguar01)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: Filibuster in the Senate -- Would you favor its eli... - 1/26/2013 10:19:29 AM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
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

(in reply to LizDeluxe)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: Filibuster in the Senate -- Would you favor its eli... - 1/26/2013 10:22:09 AM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
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

(in reply to Yachtie)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: Filibuster in the Senate -- Would you favor its eli... - 1/26/2013 10:28:19 AM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: Filibuster in the Senate -- Would you favor its eli... - 1/26/2013 10:41:36 AM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to kdsub)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: Filibuster in the Senate -- Would you favor its eli... - 1/26/2013 4:45:09 PM   
cloudboy


Posts: 7306
Joined: 12/14/2005
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: Filibuster in the Senate -- Would you favor its eli... - 1/26/2013 5:22:49 PM   
FatDomDaddy


Posts: 3183
Joined: 1/31/2004
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: Filibuster in the Senate -- Would you favor its eli... - 1/26/2013 5:37:22 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to FatDomDaddy)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: Filibuster in the Senate -- Would you favor its eli... - 1/26/2013 6:35:18 PM   
HarryVanWinkle


Posts: 1720
Joined: 5/8/2006
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to kdsub)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: Filibuster in the Senate -- Would you favor its eli... - 1/27/2013 1:00:01 PM   
Moonhead


Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: Filibuster in the Senate -- Would you favor its eli... - 1/27/2013 2:57:21 PM   
kdsub


Posts: 12180
Joined: 8/16/2007
Status: offline
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

_____________________________

Mark Twain:

I don't see any use in having a uniform and arbitrary way of spelling words. We might as well make all clothes alike and cook all dishes alike. Sameness is tiresome; variety is pleasing

(in reply to HarryVanWinkle)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: Filibuster in the Senate -- Would you favor its eli... - 1/27/2013 4:51:46 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to kdsub)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: Filibuster in the Senate -- Would you favor its eli... - 1/27/2013 6:14:56 PM   
MasterJaguar01


Posts: 2399
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline
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)

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: Filibuster in the Senate -- Would you favor its eli... - 1/27/2013 8:42:25 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
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. 

(in reply to MasterJaguar01)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: Filibuster in the Senate -- Would you favor its eli... - 1/28/2013 5:41:01 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 39
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Filibuster in the Senate -- Would you favor its elimination? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094