Godzilla1960 wrote:
It is time to revise the rules that allow the minority to permanently obstruct the will of the majority, simply for the sake of partisan politics.
Fucking Fascist!
All politics are partisan.
http://www.sabresjunkie.com/forum/ |
|
| Time to change the rules on the filibuster http://www.sabresjunkie.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1461 |
Page 1 of 4 |
| Author: | Godzilla1960 [ Tue Dec 22, 2009 12:17 am ] |
| Post subject: | Time to change the rules on the filibuster |
What was the number one issue that Barack Obama ran on in 2008? Health care reform. The American people heard what Obama proposed and elected him president by a margin of nearly 10 million votes (52.9% to 45.7% in the popular election and 365 to 175 electoral votes). They also overwhelmingly elected a Democratic House and Senate. Yet, in spite of holding only 40 seats in the Senate the GOP is able to block any and all legislation through the use of the filibuster. The filibuster, established by the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration as Senate rule 22, allows a bill to be held up indefinitely unless 60 votes bring debate to a close. In the past this was a rarely used procedure, but, starting with the Democrats in the 2006 and continuing with the current Republican Party, it has become a way of ensuring that the democratic will of the people is thwarted and that nothing gets done, the idea being that the party in power will be punished by the voters if they can't pass any legislation. The GOP has gone so far as to hold up funding for our soldiers during a time of war in order to play politics with health care reform (something the American people voted for). In the past these same Republicans would have been all over FOX news screaming treason if the Democrats had used politics to put our service men and women in harms way. It is time to revise the rules that allow the minority to permanently obstruct the will of the majority, simply for the sake of partisan politics. |
|
| Author: | Hammygoodness [ Tue Dec 22, 2009 12:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Time to change the rules on the filibuster |
First of all, I don't think the American people are in favor of either Health Care bill currently in either Houses of Congress. The people elected Obama on hope and change and are slowly leaving his camp. Second, the Senate is designed as the House of Congress that slows things down. You don't want a government able to make snap reactionary decisions that the country may later regret. I don't have much problem with the filibuster, whether Republicans or Democrats are in the majority. Ham |
|
| Author: | Crosscheck [ Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:55 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Time to change the rules on the filibuster |
Godzilla1960 wrote: It is time to revise the rules that allow the minority to permanently obstruct the will of the majority, simply for the sake of partisan politics. Fucking Fascist! All politics are partisan. |
|
| Author: | Squanto [ Tue Dec 22, 2009 11:09 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Time to change the rules on the filibuster |
I don't like the filibuster in it's current form, since it is too often used as a political toy or threat rather than legitimate purpose. The Senate seem to have become less about getting things done, and more about trying to sabotage the other party to setup the next election cycle. This is a criticism of both parties too, not just the Republiacannots. |
|
| Author: | icehound [ Tue Dec 22, 2009 11:13 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Time to change the rules on the filibuster |
....ummmmmm. No. Don't change the rules. The rules were designed to prevent exactly what you are proposing - Unilaterally-driven and unfettered legislation. Better that nothing ever gets done, than a branch of government decides it has all the answers and passes laws without representation, restraint or accountability. That's the stuff of tyrannies. |
|
| Author: | Squanto [ Tue Dec 22, 2009 11:37 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Time to change the rules on the filibuster |
The filibuster in it's present form didn't even exist until 1975 when the 3/5 rule was put into place. The filibuster as a tactic wasn't even truly viable until 1917 when the cloture rule was added. I'm not suggesting that the majority be allowed to ramrod legislation through unchecked. I'm suggesting that the process be modified so that the minority can voice their concerns and participate in the process, but not permanently delay a vote on a piece of legislation. As it exists now, the filibuster is mostly a tool for extracting concessions. "I won't vote for cloture unless you give me X." |
|
| Author: | Crosscheck [ Tue Dec 22, 2009 11:54 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Time to change the rules on the filibuster |
Quote: In 1917, a rule allowing for the cloture of debate (ending a filibuster) was adopted by the Democratic Senate Quote: the Democratic-controlled Senate in 1975 revised its cloture rule so that three-fifths of the Senators sworn (usually 60 senators) could limit debate Quote: Senator Strom Thurmond (D-SC) set a record in 1957 by filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1957 for 24 hours and 18 minutes Quote: One of the most notable filibusters of the 1960s was when southern Democratic Senators attempted, unsuccessfully, to block the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by making a filibuster that lasted for 75 hours. Don't like the rules Democrats? Then you shouldn't have made them...you stinking racists. |
|
| Author: | CriminallyVu1gar [ Tue Dec 22, 2009 12:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Time to change the rules on the filibuster |
Crosscheck wrote: Quote: In 1917, a rule allowing for the cloture of debate (ending a filibuster) was adopted by the Democratic Senate Quote: the Democratic-controlled Senate in 1975 revised its cloture rule so that three-fifths of the Senators sworn (usually 60 senators) could limit debate Quote: Senator Strom Thurmond (D-SC) set a record in 1957 by filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1957 for 24 hours and 18 minutes Quote: One of the most notable filibusters of the 1960s was when southern Democratic Senators attempted, unsuccessfully, to block the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by making a filibuster that lasted for 75 hours. Don't like the rules Democrats? Then you shouldn't have made them...you stinking racists. Are you going to time yourself out for that comment? |
|
| Author: | Crosscheck [ Tue Dec 22, 2009 12:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Time to change the rules on the filibuster |
CriminallyVu1gar wrote: Are you going to time yourself out for that comment? Why? As I pointed out, the most egregious abuses of the filibuster were done at the hands of racist Dixiecrats...it's the truth. |
|
| Author: | Squanto [ Tue Dec 22, 2009 12:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Time to change the rules on the filibuster |
I understand that the Dixiecrats were the ones who created the current rules. I just think that said rules need to be updated for the current times. |
|
| Author: | Captain Pants [ Tue Dec 22, 2009 12:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Time to change the rules on the filibuster |
CriminallyVu1gar wrote: Are you going to time yourself out for that comment? [/quote] I rarely participate in US politics threads... But it's become humorous how incredibly biased both sides are. And calling half the boards 'stinking racists' would require an apology for any else other than you it appears. It's offensive and totally unneeded. |
|
| Author: | Crosscheck [ Tue Dec 22, 2009 12:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Time to change the rules on the filibuster |
Squanto wrote: I understand that the Dixiecrats were the ones who created the current rules. I just think that said rules need to be updated for the current times. Sure...I can agree with that. I'm pretty sure Zilla wants the rules changed *right now* to fit a partisan agenda because all of the sudden, the tactics so often used and abused by both sides is slowing down and screwing up what he wants done. If it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander...that's all I'm saying. Don't whine now. |
|
| Author: | Crosscheck [ Tue Dec 22, 2009 12:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Time to change the rules on the filibuster |
Captain Pants wrote: And calling half the boards 'stinking racists' would require an apology for any else other than you it appears. It's offensive and totally unneeded. OK, then let me clarify...I wasn't calling all Democrats racists. I was calling Dixiecrats racist...those are the notable filibusters I cited in my post. |
|
| Author: | Godzilla1960 [ Tue Dec 22, 2009 12:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Time to change the rules on the filibuster |
Crosscheck wrote: Squanto wrote: I understand that the Dixiecrats were the ones who created the current rules. I just think that said rules need to be updated for the current times. Sure...I can agree with that. I'm pretty sure Zilla wants the rules changed *right now* to fit a partisan agenda because all of the sudden, the tactics so often used and abused by both sides is slowing down and screwing up what he wants done. If it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander...that's all I'm saying. Don't whine now. We have had enough political conversations, Cross, that you know that is not true. I have said repeatedly that if the people vote for the Republicans, then the Republicans should have the opportunity to pass the legislation they ran on. If the people vote for the Democrats, as they did this past election, and their number one signature issue was health care reform, then the Democrats should have a chance to put their ideas into effect. That reflects the will of the people. I'm all for partisan politics (I'm one of the most partisan folks on this board), but before ideology I believe in representative democracy. I may not like it when the American people vote for Republican or conservative politicians, but I respect the fact they we live in a system where the majority rules. I believe in a loyal opposition, but my emphasis is on the first word of that phrase, whereas the current Republican Party see only opposition, at all costs. Look at it this way. Suppose our little SabresJunkie community decides to build a barn, but I, as part of the minority don't want a barn, I want a community center. The majority have voted for a barn. I know I can't build a community center, but I sure as hell can keep everyone else from getting what they want by knocking down your barn. Any jackass can knock down a barn, but it takes a carpenter to build one. That is the current Senate under the filibuster rules. Forty Republican jackasses who can't get what they want, but they are damn sure going to make sure the other party isn't going to get what the American people sent them to Washington to do. |
|
| Author: | Crosscheck [ Tue Dec 22, 2009 12:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Time to change the rules on the filibuster |
Democrats have a supermajority....If they had their collective act together, the filibuster would be a on-issue. End of story. Maybe this health care bill had to be bought out vote by vote because it stinks. Have you considered that? EDIT: speaking of that...here's the list of all the things Harry Reid had to spend our money on to buy his 60 votes. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/21/healt ... hcare.html |
|
| Author: | Godzilla1960 [ Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Time to change the rules on the filibuster |
Crosscheck wrote: Democrats have a supermajority....If they had their collective act together, the filibuster would be a on-issue. End of story. Maybe this health care bill had to be bought out vote by vote because it stinks. Have you considered that? NOT the end of the story. You expect the Democrats to vote as one block, the way the sheeple Republicans do. That is not how the system works. We have three branches of government. The legislative branch is not supposed to be an extension of the executive branch. That may be how it works in a parlimentary system, but it was not what the framers of the Constitution intended. The GOP, using Lenin as their role model (that is not hyperbole, they ditched the politics, but kept the tactics), no longer represent their districts or states, but rather vote as a block to represent their ideology. We are not fundamentally an ideological nation, but the Republicans have found that is the only way the can compete politically is to march in lock step, with no dissent. Follow this philosophy to its logical conclusion and you will have a government that does nothing, because each party will always have just enough votes to stop the other from doing ANYTHING (such as the Republicans voting to block funding for our troops during a time of war, as they did recently). |
|
| Author: | Crosscheck [ Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Time to change the rules on the filibuster |
So what you're saying is not all Democrats really want this health care bill (they don't vote as a block). So their votes had to be won with bribes (blatant bribes...one by one). And you blame Republicans for this. Interesting. |
|
| Author: | Godzilla1960 [ Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Time to change the rules on the filibuster |
Crosscheck wrote: So what you're saying is not all Democrats really want this health care bill. Right. So their votes had to be won with bribes. And you blame Republicans for this. Interesting. New to the concept of compromise in a democratic system, Cross? Interesting. Well, here is a lesson in Realpolitik 101 - not all Democrats think alike. They aren't like Republicans in that way. |
|
| Author: | Crosscheck [ Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Time to change the rules on the filibuster |
So why don't they just produce a bill more people can vote for? Even something *gasp* a few Republicans could vote vote for? That seems like what compromise should be. Instead of the heavy handed tactics and bribes being used by Reid and Pelosi. EDIT: Mary Landrieu got $100 million for Louisiana Joe Lieberman go the public option killed Ben Nelson got an exemption for Nebraska to ever have to pay for Medicare etc. Now that's how you compromise! |
|
| Author: | Godzilla1960 [ Tue Dec 22, 2009 2:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Time to change the rules on the filibuster |
Crosscheck wrote: So why don't they just produce a bill more people can vote for? Even something *gasp* a few Republicans could vote vote for? That seems like what compromise should be. That is my point, Cross. The Republicans have publically said they would vote to kill ANY healthcare reform. They aren't interested in the normal give-and-take of compromise legislation. Their whole goal is to keep the democrats from passing ANY healthcare legislation, so they can run in 2010 by saying this is a do-nothing congress. As to bribes, Big Pharm has set a new lobbying record, spending $199 million in nine months to kill health care reform. Do you honestly think they had the interests of the American people in mind while they were spreading those bribes around? |
|
| Page 1 of 4 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|