Filibuster Debate

Discussion in 'Politics' started by candycorn, Nov 27, 2012.

  1. candycorn
    Offline

    candycorn Alis volat propriis

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2009
    Messages:
    37,569
    Thanks Received:
    4,551
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +12,069
    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.

    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.
     
  2. jwoodie
    Offline

    jwoodie Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2012
    Messages:
    8,764
    Thanks Received:
    1,287
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,912
    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."
     
  3. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,584
    Thanks Received:
    5,906
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +9,009
    So when the Republicans regain the Senate the rule should stay the same if the dems change it? Or is that different?
     
  4. GuyPinestra
    Offline

    GuyPinestra Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2012
    Messages:
    6,907
    Thanks Received:
    667
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +669
    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.
     
  5. Liberal
    Offline

    Liberal Libruhl! Libruhl!

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    1,250
    Thanks Received:
    181
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +182
    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.
     
  6. Article 15
    Offline

    Article 15 Dr. House slayer

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2008
    Messages:
    24,673
    Thanks Received:
    4,832
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Ratings:
    +4,859
    What a dumb question.

    Should the gop take control of the senate they can do what they want.
     
  7. Article 15
    Offline

    Article 15 Dr. House slayer

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2008
    Messages:
    24,673
    Thanks Received:
    4,832
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Ratings:
    +4,859
    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.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    5,014
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,221
    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.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  9. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    5,014
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,221
    Can you explain what the difference is? Of course you can't, because there isn't one, and you are a complete idiot.
     
  10. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    5,014
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,221
    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.
     

Share This Page