Republican abuse of the filibuster

[rightwinger]

I think any filibuster that the Senators are not willing to stand up at the podium and EXTEND THE DEBATE on the bill they are concerned about is AN ABUSE of the filibuster.

A filibuster IS SUPPOSE TO BE a measure that allows the minority voices to be heard..... to extend the DEBATE on a bill.

If the pussies are using the filibuster merely as a back door means to stop legislation of the majority from being passed, if they are solely being , without standing up and speaking to the senate on the senate floor, as the filibuster was designed....then they are abusing the filibuster imo.....no matter which side of the aisle they are on....

the filibuster is for EXTENDED DEBATE, not to just shelf a bill.

Filibuster has been abused to the point where a 60% majority is needed for any legislation to pass. The Constitution is very clear about a 51% majority vote needed to pass legislation. The result has been a deadlocked Congress unable to pass anything.
There needs to be some political consequence attached to a filibuster. It used to be that you actually had to speak the whole filibuster. The filibuster would Peter out and a vote would be eventually be held

 

[Quantum Windbag]

First, there hasnt been an actual filibuster in years.

Second, the chart fails to explain how it determines what an abuse of the filibuster is? How does it eliiminate legitimate uses? Does it consider any legitimate?

Third, how is the filibuster misused if the rules are followed?

The filibuster was supposed to be used only in extraordinary circumstances.

The Republicans have doubled it's use in the last two years.

I would like to see it done away with.

A vote on cloture is not a filibuster, it is following the Senate rules to end debate on a bill.

U.S. Senate: Reference Home > Glossary > cloture

Just because it can also be used to end a filibuster does not mean that that is the only time it is used. I could easily argue that a vote to limit debate is a violation of the spirit of the Senate rules since it was only intended to be used to end a filibuster, not just to get a bill passed without debate. Doing that might be to subtle for you to understand, it would mean that it is not the Republicans fault.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I think any filibuster that the Senators are not willing to stand up at the podium and EXTEND THE DEBATE on the bill they are concerned about is AN ABUSE of the filibuster.

A filibuster IS SUPPOSE TO BE a measure that allows the minority voices to be heard..... to extend the DEBATE on a bill.

If the pussies are using the filibuster merely as a back door means to stop legislation of the majority from being passed, if they are solely being , without standing up and speaking to the senate on the senate floor, as the filibuster was designed....then they are abusing the filibuster imo.....no matter which side of the aisle they are on....

the filibuster is for EXTENDED DEBATE, not to just shelf a bill.

Filibuster has been abused to the point where a 60% majority is needed for any legislation to pass. The Constitution is very clear about a 51% majority vote needed to pass legislation. The result has been a deadlocked Congress unable to pass anything.
There needs to be some political consequence attached to a filibuster. It used to be that you actually had to speak the whole filibuster. The filibuster would Peter out and a vote would be eventually be held

It amazes me how some people are consistently wrong when they comment on something, how do you do it?

Cloture votes only end debate, they have nothing to do with passing a bill.

 

[rightwinger]

I think any filibuster that the Senators are not willing to stand up at the podium and EXTEND THE DEBATE on the bill they are concerned about is AN ABUSE of the filibuster.

A filibuster IS SUPPOSE TO BE a measure that allows the minority voices to be heard..... to extend the DEBATE on a bill.

If the pussies are using the filibuster merely as a back door means to stop legislation of the majority from being passed, if they are solely being , without standing up and speaking to the senate on the senate floor, as the filibuster was designed....then they are abusing the filibuster imo.....no matter which side of the aisle they are on....

the filibuster is for EXTENDED DEBATE, not to just shelf a bill.

Filibuster has been abused to the point where a 60% majority is needed for any legislation to pass. The Constitution is very clear about a 51% majority vote needed to pass legislation. The result has been a deadlocked Congress unable to pass anything.
There needs to be some political consequence attached to a filibuster. It used to be that you actually had to speak the whole filibuster. The filibuster would Peter out and a vote would be eventually be held

It amazes me how some people are consistently wrong when they comment on something, how do you do it?

Cloture votes only end debate, they have nothing to do with passing a bill.

And what happens if you can't end debate?

 

[AmericanFirst]

it's pretty bad but filibuster reform will never happen, no one wants to give up the only weapon the minority has in congress. It's also too bad that it has come to such a horrible pass, that a tactic that was once saved for important stuff is now used uniformly to make the other party look bad at the expense of the country. Gop uber alles.

your boy barry should have thought of that before he blurted you "you got to ride in the back of the bus."

the biggest probelm obama has is that he tries to pretend 2010 didn't happen.

nothing president obama has done was anything near what the republicans and bush did to democrats between 2001 - 2006. And democrats (who i think were spineless), quietly excepted a good deal of bush policy, lest they be called traitors.

wrong!

 

[AmericanFirst]

It's this bullshit that has Congressional approval ratings at their lowest levels EVER.

The majority of Americans want compromise. Republicans see that as a dirty word.

To dimwits compromise is slander. The dimwits and obamaturd are the best at forcing bills down our throats.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Filibuster has been abused to the point where a 60% majority is needed for any legislation to pass. The Constitution is very clear about a 51% majority vote needed to pass legislation. The result has been a deadlocked Congress unable to pass anything.
There needs to be some political consequence attached to a filibuster. It used to be that you actually had to speak the whole filibuster. The filibuster would Peter out and a vote would be eventually be held

It amazes me how some people are consistently wrong when they comment on something, how do you do it?

Cloture votes only end debate, they have nothing to do with passing a bill.

And what happens if you can't end debate?

Then we do not end up with laws that allow the government to attack people anywhere in the word simply because they said something mean about the United States of America.

Think about that for a minute.

 

[rightwinger]

It amazes me how some people are consistently wrong when they comment on something, how do you do it?

Cloture votes only end debate, they have nothing to do with passing a bill.

And what happens if you can't end debate?

Then we do not end up with laws that allow the government to attack people anywhere in the word simply because they said something mean about the United States of America.

Think about that for a minute.

Then you admit that you are wrong and that cloture has everything to do with passing a bill

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And what happens if you can't end debate?

Then we do not end up with laws that allow the government to attack people anywhere in the word simply because they said something mean about the United States of America.

Think about that for a minute.

Then you admit that you are wrong and that cloture has everything to do with passing a bill

Nope, cloture is entirely about shutting the other side up.

If we had had more debate about the PPACA we might have found out that CLASS was completely unsustainable before it became law, saving us millions of dollars.

If we had more debate before NDAA passed someone might have actually made the point that taking away rights is a bad thing.

Like I told you the first time, think about it. You prefer to take the stance that passing a bill is the goal of the Senate, I prefer to take the stance that their goal is actually protecting people from bad laws before they get written. I can easily point out they failed at what I think they are there to do, while simultaneously pointing out that they actually passed every single law they tried to over the last 3 years, even after the Republicans got enough people to actually prevent cloture of they wanted to.

That alone proves cloture has nothing to do with passing a bill. The fact that, even after cloture, they still have to vote on the bill, more than proves my point.

 

[rightwinger]

Then we do not end up with laws that allow the government to attack people anywhere in the word simply because they said something mean about the United States of America.

Think about that for a minute.

Then you admit that you are wrong and that cloture has everything to do with passing a bill

Nope, cloture is entirely about shutting the other side up.

If we had had more debate about the PPACA we might have found out that CLASS was completely unsustainable before it became law, saving us millions of dollars.

If we had more debate before NDAA passed someone might have actually made the point that taking away rights is a bad thing.

Like I told you the first time, think about it. You prefer to take the stance that passing a bill is the goal of the Senate, I prefer to take the stance that their goal is actually protecting people from bad laws before they get written. I can easily point out they failed at what I think they are there to do, while simultaneously pointing out that they actually passed every single law they tried to over the last 3 years, even after the Republicans got enough people to actually prevent cloture of they wanted to.

That alone proves cloture has nothing to do with passing a bill. The fact that, even after cloture, they still have to vote on the bill, more than proves my point.

Personally, I don't care if you have a stone aged view of government. Congress is elected to pass laws. Some of those laws you may agree with, some you don't. If you can't get out of the discussion phase of a bill, you never even get a chance to vote on it

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Then you admit that you are wrong and that cloture has everything to do with passing a bill

Nope, cloture is entirely about shutting the other side up.

If we had had more debate about the PPACA we might have found out that CLASS was completely unsustainable before it became law, saving us millions of dollars.

If we had more debate before NDAA passed someone might have actually made the point that taking away rights is a bad thing.

Like I told you the first time, think about it. You prefer to take the stance that passing a bill is the goal of the Senate, I prefer to take the stance that their goal is actually protecting people from bad laws before they get written. I can easily point out they failed at what I think they are there to do, while simultaneously pointing out that they actually passed every single law they tried to over the last 3 years, even after the Republicans got enough people to actually prevent cloture of they wanted to.

That alone proves cloture has nothing to do with passing a bill. The fact that, even after cloture, they still have to vote on the bill, more than proves my point.

Personally, I don't care if you have a stone aged view of government. Congress is elected to pass laws. Some of those laws you may agree with, some you don't. If you can't get out of the discussion phase of a bill, you never even get a chance to vote on it

Congress is not elected to pass laws, they are elected to represent the people in the government. Part of that is passing necessary laws, but most of the crap they pass is unnecessary and wasteful. Maybe if people got their head out of their asses and stopped believing that the sole purpose of Congress is to pass laws we would have a lot fewer problems.

 

[Dot Com]

They didn't get the label "the party of no" for nothing

They earn it every day

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Article 1 of the Constitution list 18 powers of Congress, and relegates making laws to last on the list, just something to think about.

 

[bripat9643]

They didn't get the label "the party of no" for nothing

They earn it every day

"The party of no" is exactly what this country needs. Congressman who say "yes" to everything are bankrupting America.

 

[Care4all]

I think any filibuster that the Senators are not willing to stand up at the podium and EXTEND THE DEBATE on the bill they are concerned about is AN ABUSE of the filibuster.

A filibuster IS SUPPOSE TO BE a measure that allows the minority voices to be heard..... to extend the DEBATE on a bill.

If the pussies are using the filibuster merely as a back door means to stop legislation of the majority from being passed, if they are solely being , without standing up and speaking to the senate on the senate floor, as the filibuster was designed....then they are abusing the filibuster imo.....no matter which side of the aisle they are on....

the filibuster is for EXTENDED DEBATE, not to just shelf a bill.

Filibuster has been abused to the point where a 60% majority is needed for any legislation to pass. The Constitution is very clear about a 51% majority vote needed to pass legislation. The result has been a deadlocked Congress unable to pass anything.
There needs to be some political consequence attached to a filibuster. It used to be that you actually had to speak the whole filibuster. The filibuster would Peter out and a vote would be eventually be held

It amazes me how some people are consistently wrong when they comment on something, how do you do it?

Cloture votes only end debate, they have nothing to do with passing a bill.

Cloture vote on a filibuster which takes 60 votes to get passed, allows the bill to then be voted on dear... if the filibuster can not be broken then the Bill will never be allowed to be voted on....and THAT is NOT what the filibuster creation was for....it is suppose to be for extended debate....so the minority can have a voice on an issue of real concern.....it is meant to stall the vote ....but it's purpose from what I have read, is not to obstruct and prevent anything and everything from ever being voted on....?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Filibuster has been abused to the point where a 60% majority is needed for any legislation to pass. The Constitution is very clear about a 51% majority vote needed to pass legislation. The result has been a deadlocked Congress unable to pass anything.
There needs to be some political consequence attached to a filibuster. It used to be that you actually had to speak the whole filibuster. The filibuster would Peter out and a vote would be eventually be held

It amazes me how some people are consistently wrong when they comment on something, how do you do it?

Cloture votes only end debate, they have nothing to do with passing a bill.

Cloture vote on a filibuster which takes 60 votes to get passed, allows the bill to then be voted on dear... if the filibuster can not be broken then the Bill will never be allowed to be voted on....and THAT is NOT what the filibuster creation was for....it is suppose to be for extended debate....so the minority can have a voice on an issue of real concern.....it is meant to stall the vote ....but it's purpose from what I have read, is not to obstruct and prevent anything and everything from ever being voted on....?

The filibuster was created for exactly that, so that, if needed, a single Senator can prevent a bill from passing. The Senate changed the rules some time back so that no one actually had to filibuster, all it takes is a Senator notifying his party leadership that he wants more debate, that triggers an automatic cloture vote and prohibits an actual filibuster.

In other words, the cloture was made up to shut the other side up, which is my point. It has nothing to do with a filibuster, it is a simple procedural vote built into the rules. You can complain about the rules, but complaining about something that is not happening is a but silly.