Filibuster Debate

[candycorn]

Mcconnell had a good idea. Return the Senate to the earlier tactic to where Senators had to hold the floor to prevent business from moving forward.

If Reid wants to defeat filibusters, McConnell suggested, he should “use the fatigue factor to grind down opposition” by forcing senators who were filibustering motions or bills to stay on the Senate floor and keep speaking.

While its an unbelieveably bad idea to have such a thing, make the Senators physically hold the floor. The practice has been out of favor recently. Id like to see McCain speak for 55 hours just to prevent Rice's nomination coming to a vote. It also would be a civics lesson on obstructionism.

 

[jwoodie]

The 60 vote filibuster rule is the last constraint we have on whimsical mob rule, something the Founders were sagely aware of. As the saying goes, "Be careful of what you wish for."

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Mcconnell had a good idea. Return the Senate to the earlier tactic to where Senators had to hold the floor to prevent business from moving forward.

If Reid wants to defeat filibusters, McConnell suggested, he should “use the fatigue factor to grind down opposition” by forcing senators who were filibustering motions or bills to stay on the Senate floor and keep speaking.

While its an unbelieveably bad idea to have such a thing, make the Senators physically hold the floor. The practice has been out of favor recently. Id like to see McCain speak for 55 hours just to prevent Rice's nomination coming to a vote. It also would be a civics lesson on obstructionism.

So when the Republicans regain the Senate the rule should stay the same if the dems change it? Or is that different?

 

[GuyPinestra]

You know, the Republicans wanted to eliminate the filibuster when THEY held the power back in 2005. Their proposal was IDENTICAL to what the Democrats are proposing now. All of the Democrats lined up to argue against such a blatant power grab, and they were very eloquent in their defense of the status quo. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, they ALL spoke out forcefully to castigate the Republicans for their unConstitutional proposal.

And now they're all in favor of it...

Go figure.

 

[Liberal]

So when the Republicans regain the Senate the rule should stay the same if the dems change it? Or is that different?

As most of us have said (not that you listen to anything).

We are willing to take this risk.

And, the republicans will probably have a hard time getting the Senate back again. The house is a different story.

 

[Article 15]

Mcconnell had a good idea. Return the Senate to the earlier tactic to where Senators had to hold the floor to prevent business from moving forward.

If Reid wants to defeat filibusters, McConnell suggested, he should “use the fatigue factor to grind down opposition” by forcing senators who were filibustering motions or bills to stay on the Senate floor and keep speaking.

While its an unbelieveably bad idea to have such a thing, make the Senators physically hold the floor. The practice has been out of favor recently. Id like to see McCain speak for 55 hours just to prevent Rice's nomination coming to a vote. It also would be a civics lesson on obstructionism.

So when the Republicans regain the Senate the rule should stay the same if the dems change it? Or is that different?

What a dumb question.

Should the gop take control of the senate they can do what they want.

 

[Article 15]

Reid should make them actually filibuster and also change the rule to 40 votes are needed to maintain a filibuster, not 60 to break it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Mcconnell had a good idea. Return the Senate to the earlier tactic to where Senators had to hold the floor to prevent business from moving forward.

If Reid wants to defeat filibusters, McConnell suggested, he should “use the fatigue factor to grind down opposition” by forcing senators who were filibustering motions or bills to stay on the Senate floor and keep speaking.

While its an unbelieveably bad idea to have such a thing, make the Senators physically hold the floor. The practice has been out of favor recently. Id like to see McCain speak for 55 hours just to prevent Rice's nomination coming to a vote. It also would be a civics lesson on obstructionism.

I wonder why all the people who think they are experts on old fashioned filibusters haven't actually read the rules about them. There is nothing that prevents a Senator from yielding the floor for a question, thus letting another Senator speak for a few hours while he takes a rest. The only requirement for a filibuster to continue is that there is someone on the floor the entire time it is going on.

There is also a catch for the people that want to break a filibuster, they have to maintain a quorum and actually listen to whoever is talking. This is so that if he faints, they can immediately move for debate to end. This requires that a large number of Senators be on call to vote, which means they have to remain in the building, not go home, not go to parties, and not raise money for their campaigns. This actually puts a larger strain on the party that opposes the filibuster, and is the real reason the requirement to actually filibuster was dropped, and explains why it will never be put back.

If you want to discuss filibusters you should know how they work so you don't look like the idiot you actually are.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Reid should make them actually filibuster and also change the rule to 40 votes are needed to maintain a filibuster, not 60 to break it.

Can you explain what the difference is? Of course you can't, because there isn't one, and you are a complete idiot.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The most interesting thing about this is that no one here actually understands what the Republicans are objecting to. Just to explain it to all the idiots that think this is about the filibuster, it isn't. It currently takes 66 votes to change the rules for the Senate. What Reid is talking about is trashing that rules, and going with a 51 vote majority to change the rules, and then using that breach of protocol to change the rules for the filibuster.

Anyone that thinks that is a good idea is beyond stupid.

 

[Article 15]

Reid should make them actually filibuster and also change the rule to 40 votes are needed to maintain a filibuster, not 60 to break it.

Can you explain what the difference is? Of course you can't, because there isn't one, and you are a complete idiot.

Yes, I can. Thanks for asking. The fact that you can't see the obvious difference is just your aspergers hindering you again.

 

[occupied]

You know, the Republicans wanted to eliminate the filibuster when THEY held the power back in 2005. Their proposal was IDENTICAL to what the Democrats are proposing now. All of the Democrats lined up to argue against such a blatant power grab, and they were very eloquent in their defense of the status quo. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, they ALL spoke out forcefully to castigate the Republicans for their unConstitutional proposal.

And now they're all in favor of it...

Go figure.

While it is fair to compare the reversal of roles here it is important to realize that the senate has been shut down completely, almost nothing gets through. It is one thing to block individual votes on appointments or, historically, civil rights legislation but to shut the whole thing down on everything is another. They can't say that every single thing the majority seeks to pass is on the level of the Bork nomination or the civil rights act, most of it is stuff any of them would have voted for before they decided to start taking everything hostage.

 

[Seawytch]

Yes. Get rid of the "lazy filibuster" . Make 'em stand there and talk.

 

[occupied]

Yes. Get rid of the "lazy filibuster" . Make 'em stand there and talk.

Not sure that is even an option, a way must be found to make a filibuster cost something, to make it entail an element of risk so that it cannot be abused. I have no hope that this little blowup will actually change anything, McConnell will do what he did last time, make some kind of promise to play nice, break it immediately, more whining and gridlock ensues.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Reid should make them actually filibuster and also change the rule to 40 votes are needed to maintain a filibuster, not 60 to break it.

Can you explain what the difference is? Of course you can't, because there isn't one, and you are a complete idiot.

Yes, I can. Thanks for asking. The fact that you can't see the obvious difference is just your aspergers hindering you again.

Here is the obvious.

When they vote on a ending a filibuster if 40 Senators do not vote to keep it going it will end.

When they vote to maintain a filibuster if 60 Senators do not vote to end it it will continue.

Now I have proven I can see the obvious, and you have proven that you can't explain why your proposal is different than what they already do.

 

[blackhawk]

I would like to point put several years ago when the republicans held the senate and wanted to change the rules the left chief among Harry Reid and then senator Obama were very much against it.if the left wants to change the rules just remember one day you will be in the minority and will have to abide by the same rules you now want for political convenience.

 

[Lumpy 1]

It would be nice if Obama was required to hold a 3hr. press conference each week..

..also if the leadership in the Congress was required to do the same..


... but it would be nice to hold their feet to the fire and also know what the hell their up to..

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It would be nice if Obama was required to hold a 3hr. press conference each week..

..also if the leadership in the Congress was required to do the same..


... but it would be nice to hold their feet to the fire and also know what the hell their up to..

I would settle for once a month.

 

[Darkwind]

Symptommatic of the low quality of people this country breeds now days.

We want to do what we want to do, and we are tired of people standing in our way.

Change the rules!!!

Never mind that if what you propose was good, your argument would sway enough people to back your idea.

Pathetic.

 

[occupied]

It would be nice if Obama was required to hold a 3hr. press conference each week..

..also if the leadership in the Congress was required to do the same..


... but it would be nice to hold their feet to the fire and also know what the hell their up to..

I would settle for once a month.

I guess the daily WH press briefing is not good enough? No one pays attention to them as it is. The value of a press conference is pretty dubious when the press is only looking for out of context sound bites rather than an honest exploration of policy. Journalistic integrity is dead, cable news killed it, so fuckem. They can subsist on the thin gruel of press releases until they remember what they are supposed to do.