Obama wants to do away with the filibuster?

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Somehow, you're an idiot.

Anyone who believes in the Vote should want it ended.

I don't care who's in office.

The people get to decide if they did the job right or not. No excuses, the filibuster is an excuse to get nothing done.

The filibuster prevents a tyranny of the majority. We have checks and balances in our system of government so that the minority still has a voice. The filibuster is simply another mechanism to assure that.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The filibuster has come and gone throughout Senate history. It's been done away with in the past and then brought back more than once.

 

[WillowTree]

Yes! He wants to do away with the one thing that has held back complete government control.
Never mind that dems used this also including Obama when he was in the senate.

I'm really surprised that we are going to be allowed to vote on Tues.

 

[G.T.]

Somehow, you're an idiot.

Anyone who believes in the Vote should want it ended.

I don't care who's in office.

The people get to decide if they did the job right or not. No excuses, the filibuster is an excuse to get nothing done.

The filibuster prevents a tyranny of the majority. We have checks and balances in our system of government so that the minority still has a voice. The filibuster is simply another mechanism to assure that.

The filibuster is one too many.

It's the reason many politicians get to say "I'll do this this and this,"

the people vote for said agenda, electing said majority...

Agenda is checked through the house, through the Pres via veto, and if it comes to it, Supreme Court, and a last check: the next vote.

It doesn't prevent tyranny, it prevents a representative Democracy from being functional.

 

[WillowTree]

Somehow, you're an idiot.

Anyone who believes in the Vote should want it ended.

I don't care who's in office.

The people get to decide if they did the job right or not. No excuses, the filibuster is an excuse to get nothing done.

The filibuster prevents a tyranny of the majority. We have checks and balances in our system of government so that the minority still has a voice. The filibuster is simply another mechanism to assure that.

Oh! that explains why his sorry azz want to do away with it NOW. And not two years ago. Thankee.

 

[G.T.]

Somehow, you're an idiot.

Anyone who believes in the Vote should want it ended.

I don't care who's in office.

The people get to decide if they did the job right or not. No excuses, the filibuster is an excuse to get nothing done.

The filibuster prevents a tyranny of the majority. We have checks and balances in our system of government so that the minority still has a voice. The filibuster is simply another mechanism to assure that.

Oh! that explains why his sorry azz want to do away with it NOW. And not two years ago. Thankee.

You just implied that before a post by donttazmebro on usmb, you didn't know what filibuster was. Strong work.

 

[Samson]

As a lover of the Constitution, I would love to see where it specifies a fillibuster

I don't think we should allow practices that aren't mandated in the Constitution

When did you join the Tea Party?

After Barack Hussein became a president, and stopped using the filibuster as a senator?

 

[WillowTree]

The filibuster prevents a tyranny of the majority. We have checks and balances in our system of government so that the minority still has a voice. The filibuster is simply another mechanism to assure that.

Oh! that explains why his sorry azz want to do away with it NOW. And not two years ago. Thankee.

You just implied that before a post by donttazmebro on usmb, you didn't know what filibuster was. Strong work.

I'm did?

 

[BlindBoo]

Yes! He wants to do away with the one thing that has held back complete government control.
Never mind that dems used this also including Obama when he was in the senate.

And when they did, the Republicans were talking the same as the president.

 

[manifold]

I don't think we should allow practices that aren't mandated in the Constitution

You mean like funding for education and healthcare for example?

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Hopey Changey dummies really are hilarious. We'll see what their reaction will be when or if a Republican President & Congress tries to do away with the Filibuster. I'm pretty sure you'll be seeing a completely different reaction from them. Once they receive their DNC & Moveon.org Talking Points,i'm pretty sure they will suddenly have a change of heart on this one. Gee go figure? The Republicans probably wont push for this though because this is just another whiny Socialist/Progressive tactic. They're known for this kind of whiny shit. It aint gonna happen.

 

[BlindBoo]

I'm glad all you Hopey Changeys feel this way. Maybe this will happen when a Republican retakes the White House and the Republicans control Congress. We have you on record for supporting ending the Filibuster. We'll see if you still feel that way in the future. Somehow i doubt it though.

So Republicans were never for changing the rules of the Senate?

Republican threats of "nuclear option" put United States at brink of parliamentary war, suggests congressional expert Steven Smith | Newsroom | Washington University in St. Louis

Under the nuclear option, Republicans would seek to change the Senate's rules during floor debate over a court nominee. In one scenario, as outlined in an article in The National Journal, Republican Rules Committee Chairman Trent Lott, R-Miss., would raise a point of order seeking a ruling from the presiding officer in the chair -- probably Vice President Cheney, the president of the Senate -- stating that filibusters of nominations to the federal bench are unconstitutional.

"The point of order would be a carefully worded one, I'm sure, well orchestrated with the vice president," Smith told the National Journal. "It would say something like, 'The Senate is obligated to cast a vote on judicial nominations,' and then state the constitutional grounds that it is essential to carrying out its responsibility to provide advice and consent. The vice president then would probably simply concur with the point of order, without consulting the [Senate] parliamentarian."

Democrats could challenge the point of order, but Republicans in the chamber would need only a simple majority to table or "kill" the challenge. If pushed through, the rule change would bar use of the filibuster as a means of blocking judicial nominations.

 

[BlindBoo]

Hopey Changey dummies really are hilarious. We'll see what their reaction will be when or if a Republican President & Congress tries to do away with the Filibuster. I'm pretty sure you'll be seeing a completely different reaction from them. Once they receive their DNC & Moveon.org Talking Points,i'm pretty sure they will suddenly have a change of heart on this one. Gee go figure? The Republicans probably wont push for this though because this is just another whiny Socialist/Progressive tactic. They're known for this kind of whiny shit. It aint gonna happen.

What really funny are partisans who use terms like "Hopey" and "Changey" who think that most Republicans are not statist (just like most Democrats).

 

[manifold]

The filibuster needs to stay, but I COMPLETELY agree that it needs to go back to requiring those filibustering to ACTUALLY filibuster and not just invoke it as they do now. Given the fact that they can simply invoke it, it's now used frequently to play partisan politics and be obstructionist. If they had to actually filibuster, it would only be used when it really matters and thus much less often.

But doing away with it entirely is a horrible idea.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Just wait till the Republicans propose this. After these Hopey Changey nutters receive their Talking Point memos,i'm pretty sure they'll be singing a completely different tune. But we got em on record here supporting ending the Filibuster. Stay tuned.

 

[beowolfe]

Is that what he was actually suggesting on The Daily Show when Jon Stewart was interviewing him?

I want to get rid of it too. Since the senate has abused it so badly.

 

[rightwinger]

The filibuster needs to stay, but I COMPLETELY agree that it needs to go back to requiring those filibustering to ACTUALLY filibuster and not just invoke it as they do now. Given the fact that they can simply invoke it, it's now used frequently to play partisan politics and be obstructionist. If they had to actually filibuster, it would only be used when it really matters and thus much less often.

But doing away with it entirely is a horrible idea.

I agree that the fillibuster should be maintained. But both parties have progressively abused the intent of the fillibuster to the point where the Constitution has seen a defacto change to a 60% vote in the Senate.

A bill the stature of the Stimulus or the Healthcare plan should have been subjected to possible fillibuster. But when every court appointment and minor piece of legislation gets fillibustered we have a non-functional government.

Either make them talk it out or agree to rules on what is subject to fillibuster

 

[LibocalypseNow]

The Filibuster is an important option. I feel this way no matter who has the power. If the Republicans proposed doing away with it,i would oppose them.

 

[Samson]

As a lover of the Constitution, I would love to see where it specifies a fillibuster. I don't think we should allow practices that aren't mandated in the Constitution

I agree that the fillibuster should be maintained.

 

[Jeremy]

Yes! He wants to do away with the one thing that has held back complete government control.
Never mind that dems used this also including Obama when he was in the senate.

I'm really surprised that we are going to be allowed to vote on Tues.

It's not 11/2 yet, don't give them any ideas.