Filibuster: continued talk or go to lunch/home?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Yurt, Apr 16, 2005.

  1. Yurt
    Offline

    Yurt Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Messages:
    25,583
    Thanks Received:
    3,554
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Location:
    Hot air ballon
    Ratings:
    +5,038
    By its very definition, filibuster requires someone to stand on the floor and talk, without cessation. This is exemplified in the movie, "Mr Smith goes to Washington." In modern times congress will simply ajourn with a filibuster by simply saying: "we are not going to talk about the filibustered issue," and then go home or to lunch.

    Some famous filibusters were eventually broken becuase of, for example: potty breaks (forget the year). This is the whole point of a filibuster, to make someone stay talking, be it about their mother's recipes, but to stand or on a cot in that one famous filibuster, and talk, and talk, and talk, and talk, and talk, and talk, and talk, until either the majority side gives up or the minority filibuster gives in.

    I think this should still be the standard. To simply say, "I will filibuster," and then go home goes directly against the spirit of "filibustering." Now I know the congress can make their own rules/traditions, however, IMHO, a filibuster should be a filibuster, else call it a different name, like "obstruction."

    What do you think?
     
  2. Nienna
    Offline

    Nienna Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    4,515
    Thanks Received:
    333
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +333
    Sounds good.
     
  3. SmarterThanYou
    Online

    SmarterThanYou Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    now why should standard senate rules be adhered to? after all, the republican majority senate would NEVER violate any rules like, say, hold open a vote for 5 extra hours to pass paid for legislation from some major industry, would they? :rolleyes:
     
  4. Yurt
    Offline

    Yurt Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Messages:
    25,583
    Thanks Received:
    3,554
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Location:
    Hot air ballon
    Ratings:
    +5,038
    this happened? please show me where, thanks.

    also, what do you think about the filibuster actually being a "filibuster." I mean, holding something open for five extra hours does not sound like it completly changes the rules, in that, there is a time frame you must adhere too, but the republicans now adhere to "no" time frame at all. the issue with the filibuster is that the rule/standard has been completely changed, not just taking away five hours for a break, rather, to not have the break at all, instead, just allow all to go home.
     
  5. SmarterThanYou
    Online

    SmarterThanYou Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    my bad, it was not the senate, it was the house.

    medicare/drugcard vote

    Time Was GOP's Ally On the Vote

    By David S. Broder
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Sunday, November 23, 2003; Page A01

    At exactly 3 a.m. yesterday, Rep. Richard "Doc" Hastings (R-Wash.), presiding over the House of Representatives, announced that time for debate on President Bush's Medicare reform and prescription drug bill had expired. "Members will have 15 minutes to record their votes," he said.

    The forecast turned out to be wildly off the mark. It was nearly 6 a.m. when the longest roll call in House history ended, with Republicans cheering a 220 to 215 victory and embittered Democrats denouncing it as a travesty.
    And we all see how that turned out now, didn't we?

    the filibuster, despite the claims of abuse and unconstitutionality by the republicans, has become the only tool left by the democrats to prevent a wildly rampaging right wing extremist group of supposed conservatives to stack a judiciary with people who are anti-abortion. While that in and of itself would not be a bad thing because of the ridiculous roe v. wade ruling, its the anti-consumer attitude that all these nominees have with them that (in my opinion) seriously jeopardizes this country. Removing the filibuster or enforcing the exact action by definition is tyranny of the majority and opression of the minority no matter the bullshit spin and rhetoric.
     
  6. pegwinn
    Offline

    pegwinn Top of the Food Chain

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Messages:
    2,549
    Thanks Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +329
    I think that the majority should sit in and not allow an ajournment until a no-shit filibuster takes place. Keep em going until they pass out from exhaustion. Then call in enough republicans to vote the issue. If enough R's don wanna stand by and sleep through it, then nuke em and move on. :blowup:

    And then, if the D's still want to whine ... [​IMG]
     
  7. Gem
    Offline

    Gem BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Messages:
    2,080
    Thanks Received:
    782
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +782
    I am fully willing to admit confusion or even ignorance on matters when they arise...and to prove that:

    Can someone please explain to me how a filibuster is a worthwhile and/or neccessary thing?

    I elect my officials, you elect yours. If more of your officials want to vote a certain way than my official does...then thats a representative democracy in action....my official stalling, in essence staging a mini-temper tantrum in calmer form, until your officials tire and decide that the issue wasn't that important to begin with seems like it is working AGAINST the system people who support the filibuster claim it is an integral part of.

    Isn't it a bit like putting your fingers in your ears and screaming "LA LA LA LA LA LA I'M NOT LISTENING LA LA LA LA LA" in the middle of a conversation and then, when the other person tires of trying to explain their point to you and walks away you laugh and say, "I WIN!"

    I'm sure I just don't know enough about it...which is why I'm asking...can anyone explain it to me?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. insein
    Offline

    insein Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    6,096
    Thanks Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Philadelphia, Amazing huh...
    Ratings:
    +356
    Hit the nail right on the head. A filibuster stands against everything the constituition was written for. We the people elect officials to do our bidding. When one side has the majority, that means the majority of people voted for them. Therefore the minority had better do a better job in the next election. Meanwhile, they dont get to have a BIGGER voice then the majority for losing. Completely assinine.
     
  9. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    Guanteed gridlock to "protect the rights of the minority". If both parties do this continually, nothing will be decided on critical issues. Does essentially doing nothing really protect anyones rights or does it just "protect" the jobs of politicians?
     
  10. pegwinn
    Offline

    pegwinn Top of the Food Chain

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Messages:
    2,549
    Thanks Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +329
    Nope, with respect, Majorities are not always right. A true democracy is actually mob rule and that is just as wrong as activist liberal judges. A filibuster can serve a usefull purpose if it is constitutional. I am no scholar, but I am given to understand that there is no requirement for a supermajority for judges. But by engageing in a filibuster (which isn't a true FB btw) it creates an artificial requirement for a supermajority in this area. Just exercise the nuclear option and move on. IMO.
     

Share This Page