Get rid of the Senate filibuster once and for all

[jwoodie]

Whatever theoretical justification may have existed in the past, the remaining Senate filibuster rules are nothing more than a device for Senators who are up for reelection to avoid votes to which the voters could hold them accountable. In addition, it has become a one-party device used by Democrats when convenient and discarded when it is not.

Since U.S. Senators are now elected by popular vote (and out-of-state money), is there ANY reason to cling to this anachronistic remnant of state sovereignty?

 

[Fenton Lum]

I guess we could always go back to having them appointed by the aristocracy as the founders envisioned.

 

[saveliberty]

It is used for something that is a big issue. Never throw away a tool without careful consideration of its value, condition and replacement cost.

 

[jwoodie]

It is used for something that is a big issue. Never throw away a tool without careful consideration of its value, condition and replacement cost.

I'm afraid that the "big issue" you refer to is the reelection of sitting Senators. That seems like enough "value" alone to warrant its abolition.

 

[...]

Actually, the filibuster is the only defense a minority party has. I wouldn't throw it away.

 

[jwoodie]

Actually, the filibuster is the only defense a minority party has. I wouldn't throw it away.

Correction: The filibuster is the only defense the minority Democrats have. They suspended it when the Republicans were in the minority, so what legitimate purpose does it serve?

 

[Camp]

More of the March to Fascism. Deconstruct the media, deconstruct and destabilize democratic institutions. Give authoritarian power to the chosen leader who is right 100% of the time and should never be questioned.

 

[...]

Actually, the filibuster is the only defense a minority party has. I wouldn't throw it away.

Correction: The filibuster is the only defense the minority Democrats have. They suspended it when the Republicans were in the minority, so what legitimate purpose does it serve?

Uh, no: fact. The filibuster dates to 1806 and in use as we know it from 1917. It's open to both sides and can be stopped by rule 22. The Republicans have used it to try and stop Obama appointees and since, both parties have come together to change the rule on appointees.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Whatever theoretical justification may have existed in the past, the remaining Senate filibuster rules are nothing more than a device for Senators who are up for reelection to avoid votes to which the voters could hold them accountable. In addition, it has become a one-party device used by Democrats when convenient and discarded when it is not.

Since U.S. Senators are now elected by popular vote (and out-of-state money), is there ANY reason to cling to this anachronistic remnant of state sovereignty?

Maybe out of state money should be outlawed instead....maybe it alrdy is illegal and just another unenforced law

 

[ScienceRocks]

Replace our senators with kittens. They would be cute and wouldn't do anything.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Whatever theoretical justification may have existed in the past, the remaining Senate filibuster rules are nothing more than a device for Senators who are up for reelection to avoid votes to which the voters could hold them accountable.

Since U.S. Senators are now elected by popular vote (and out-of-state money), is there ANY reason to cling to this anachronistic remnant of state sovereignty?

Liberum Veto Was the Original Polack Joke

The reason is an in-your-face by the ruling class. If they can force a form of government on us that allows such adolescent silliness and egoistic obstruction, we really feel stuck, humiliated, and hopelessly controlled.

 

[jwoodie]

Message to GOP: Go nuclear or go home.