“Filibuster Reform” Is Misleading

Discussion in 'Congress' started by longknife, Nov 10, 2012.

  1. longknife
    Offline

    longknife Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2012
    Messages:
    25,193
    Thanks Received:
    8,344
    Trophy Points:
    900
    Location:
    Sin City
    Ratings:
    +13,572
    by Senator Jim DeMint

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has a new idea to make it easier to pass legislation: Cut Republicans out of the process.

    He’s calling it “filibuster reform,” but it would do away with the minority’s historic rights because they are an inconvenience to the Democrats’ liberal, uncompromising political agenda.

    After all, when was the last time Republicans conducted a true filibuster to block, delay, or outright kill a bill? The last person to engage in a genuine filibuster was the ultraliberal Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. In 2010, He spoke on the Senate floor for eight hours straight in an attempt to defeat legislation to extend tax rates.

    Read full disgusting story @ Senator Jim DeMint: "Filibuster Reform" Is Misleading

    After this last election, I see confirmation of the mental retardedation that re-elected Dingy Harry this last time around.
     
  2. PhineasTBluster
    Offline

    PhineasTBluster PhineasT

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2012
    Messages:
    9
    Thanks Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Location:
    Midwest
    Ratings:
    +2
    I wonder if Harry would have been this eager to change the rules had the Republicans taken over the Senate? My money says, "NOT!."
     
  3. konradv
    Offline

    konradv Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    22,560
    Thanks Received:
    2,558
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Baltimore
    Ratings:
    +5,673
    Didn't Republicans basically have the same attitude when they threatened Democrats with the "nuclear option"? The explanation of how it works had my head spinning, but basically it was an end run around the rule by finagling parliamentary procedure. Regardless, in the end it would have had the same effect. Both sides want things their way and will do just about anything to get it. Personally, I'm for compromise. Can somebody get the message to Boehner?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. waltky
    Offline

    waltky Wise ol' monkey Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2011
    Messages:
    20,837
    Thanks Received:
    1,790
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    Okolona, KY
    Ratings:
    +3,875
    Granny says dey all gonna get up there an' argue & fuss an' act like a buncha bombastic Buskins an' nothin' ain't gonna get done...
    :eusa_eh:
    Support grows for curbing filibuster
    Tuesday, November 27, 2012 - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s push to curtail use of the filibuster has picked up traction, even among many of the chamber’s senior Democrats who, while generally the most protective of Senate traditions, say Republicans have taken obstruction to unprecedented levels.
     
  5. whitehall
    Offline

    whitehall Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    27,809
    Thanks Received:
    4,340
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Western Va.
    Ratings:
    +10,773
    With all the talk about compromise and working together the first thing on the democrat senate majority's agenda is curbing the rights of the republican minority. The democrat controlled senate couldn't even find time to get a budget together but they are hot on the case to limit filibuster.
     
  6. mamooth
    Offline

    mamooth Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2012
    Messages:
    13,686
    Thanks Received:
    2,447
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    Ratings:
    +6,639
    Could you tell us what these mythical "rights of the minority" are, and where I can find them in the Constitution? My copy of the Constitution very strongly implies that the senate operates by majority vote. There's nothing about requiring a 60-vote supermajority vote anywhere. And since the Democrats are totally willing to have the new filibuster rules apply to themselves if Democrats become the minority, what's all the fuss about?

    I'll list Harry Reid's shockingly horrifying reforms:

    1. Someone actually has to be talking during the duration of the filibuster
    2. Only debate closing/final votes can be filibustered, not debate opening and other technical points
    3. The intervals between when debate-closing filibuster-ending votes can be taken is shortened.

    Could any of you explain specifically which of those points is "destroying the rights of the minority", and why you believe it to be the case? Senator Reid looks to be returning the filibuster to its traditional form, as opposed to its current abusive form.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. onecut39
    Offline

    onecut39 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2008
    Messages:
    1,523
    Thanks Received:
    140
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +150
    Thank you. At last someone who knows what they are talking about.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. mjollnir
    Offline

    mjollnir BANNED

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2012
    Messages:
    1,055
    Thanks Received:
    94
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +94
    Boom.

    Thanks for taking the time to write that.

    Downs Syndrome adults like the OP just aren't worth the effort.
     
  9. theDoctorisIn
    Online

    theDoctorisIn Senior Mod Staff Member Senior USMB Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2009
    Messages:
    30,004
    Thanks Received:
    5,791
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    East, but still West
    Ratings:
    +11,945
    That's the point of the reform.
     
  10. oldfart
    Offline

    oldfart Older than dirt

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    Messages:
    2,354
    Thanks Received:
    462
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Location:
    Redneck Riviera
    Ratings:
    +527
    While I agree with you, I would point out that the drafters of the Constitution gave considerable thought to when a supermajority of the Senate was required and came up with five cases:

    1. To ratify a treaty. [Article II Section 2]
    2. To convict on a charge of impeachment. [Article I Section 3]
    3. To propose an amendment of the Constitution to the States. [Article V]
    4. To expel a member of the Senate. [Article I Section 5]
    5. To override a presidential veto. [Article I Section 7]

    I note in passing the more trivial matters for which the Constitution is satisfied with a simple majority vote:

    1. Election of the Vice President of the United States. [Article II Section 1]
    2. Suspending the writ of Habeus Corpus. [Article I Section 9]
    3. Admission of new States to the Union. [Article IV Section 3]
    4. To declare War. [Article I Section 8]
    5. Approve Justices of the Supreme Court [Article II Section 2]

    I think that consideration of the two lists leads to the conclusion that the drafters of the Constitution seriously considered what types of issues should require more than a majority vote, and if they didn't write it into the Constitution requiring a two-thirds vote, they clearly intended it to be an issue resolved by majority vote.

    To argue that a Senate rule should protect a minority in a mundane vote when a simple majority can declare war or admit new states to the Union is simply absurd.
     

Share This Page