Will the Senate scrap the filibuster?

[Trajan]

Will the Senate scrap the filibuster on January 5? - The Week

A large group of Democratic senators, led by Majority Leader Harry Reid, wants to reform the filibuster process on January 5, the first day of the new Congress — when, according to precedent, the incoming Senate majority can alter the rules by a simple majority vote without fear of the process itself being filibustered. Although Reid's exact plans are unknown, the changes would reportedly require legislators to be speaking on the Senate floor in order to block a proposed bill (see Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington). Will this work, and is it constitutional for Democrats to even be trying?

why would they want to do that?

 

[The T]

If a bill is so damn good it should take 70 to 75 votes to pass in the senate. Our bills are costly, feel good legislation, worthless measures that benefit no one.

I for one would love to see the 17th Amendment abolished, and the Election of Senators returned to the State Legislatures as intended.

 

[Trajan]

Filibuster was a quaint, hardly used custom until recent Congresses.

you are entitled to your opinion not your facts you told me in another thread...sooooo

The History of the Filibuster - Brookings Institution

from a freindly source too...

It is now used to change the Constitutional requirement of a majority vote in the Senate to pass legislation. Rather than being used for crucial legislation it has become a defacto 60% majority to pass laws.

Both sides should sign up to filibuster reforms since both sides have been abusing it.

The Democrats may benefit for now, but both sides, and more importantly, the country will benefit from ending the filibuster

I don't think so.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

If a bill is so damn good it should take 70 to 75 votes to pass in the senate. Our bills are costly, feel good legislation, worthless measures that benefit no one.

I for one would love to see the 17th Amendment abolished, and the Election of Senators returned to the State Legislatures as intended.

I've longed for that for years versus the carnival that we now have.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

The Constitution, which all Liberals love and respect, requires a majority vote in the Senate with the Vice President as the tie breaker

Requiring a 60% vote before you can actually vote on a bill is circumventing our beloved Constitution

Good stuff there, rw. Now that's funny.

The Constitution was written by Liberals

A lot of the founders were classical liberals. There is no comparison to that term and progressive/dems/liberals of today. They would laugh, jump on their clipper, and sail the hell away from this circus to start all over again.

 

[rightwinger]

If a bill is so damn good it should take 70 to 75 votes to pass in the senate. Our bills are costly, feel good legislation, worthless measures that benefit no one.

I for one would love to see the 17th Amendment abolished, and the Election of Senators returned to the State Legislatures as intended.

Sure ...let Senators be selected in back room deals

Power to the people....where it belongs

 

[The T]

If a bill is so damn good it should take 70 to 75 votes to pass in the senate. Our bills are costly, feel good legislation, worthless measures that benefit no one.

I for one would love to see the 17th Amendment abolished, and the Election of Senators returned to the State Legislatures as intended.

I've longed for that for years versus the carnival that we now have.

Agreed. It was a mistake to give the Senate up for the popular vote.

 

[rightwinger]

Good stuff there, rw. Now that's funny.

The Constitution was written by Liberals

A lot of the founders were classical liberals. There is no comparison to that term and progressive/dems/liberals of today. They would laugh, jump on their clipper, and sail the hell away from this circus to start all over again.

The founding fathers would be ashamed of our current conservatives...much the same as they were ashamed of the conservatives of their day

 

[boedicca]

No. The Senate will not scrap the filibuster.

The Dems will mewl and snarf that they want to get rid of it - but deep down they want to keep it for when they are once again the minority party.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Will the Senate scrap the filibuster on January 5? - The Week

A large group of Democratic senators, led by Majority Leader Harry Reid, wants to reform the filibuster process on January 5, the first day of the new Congress — when, according to precedent, the incoming Senate majority can alter the rules by a simple majority vote without fear of the process itself being filibustered. Although Reid's exact plans are unknown, the changes would reportedly require legislators to be speaking on the Senate floor in order to block a proposed bill (see Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington). Will this work, and is it constitutional for Democrats to even be trying?

This is perfectly constitutional and there's nothing wrong with it.
Of course, as soon as the Dems have to suffer under it, they will whine.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Constitution, which all Liberals love and respect, requires a majority vote in the Senate with the Vice President as the tie breaker

Requiring a 60% vote before you can actually vote on a bill is circumventing our beloved Constitution

You were already cited the Constitutional provision for a Filibuster. You can't help but lie. As I recall you are of the opinion that one need not submit and get passed an amendment any more either, just hire some Ju7dge to make a ruling.

You don't give a RATS ass about the Constitution.

 

[rightwinger]

Will the Senate scrap the filibuster on January 5? - The Week

A large group of Democratic senators, led by Majority Leader Harry Reid, wants to reform the filibuster process on January 5, the first day of the new Congress — when, according to precedent, the incoming Senate majority can alter the rules by a simple majority vote without fear of the process itself being filibustered. Although Reid's exact plans are unknown, the changes would reportedly require legislators to be speaking on the Senate floor in order to block a proposed bill (see Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington). Will this work, and is it constitutional for Democrats to even be trying?

This is perfectly constitutional and there's nothing wrong with it.
Of course, as soon as the Dems have to suffer under it, they will whine.

Changing Senate rules is Constitutional

 

[rightwinger]

The Constitution, which all Liberals love and respect, requires a majority vote in the Senate with the Vice President as the tie breaker

Requiring a 60% vote before you can actually vote on a bill is circumventing our beloved Constitution

You were already cited the Constitutional provision for a Filibuster. You can't help but lie. As I recall you are of the opinion that one need not submit and get passed an amendment any more either, just hire some Ju7dge to make a ruling.

You don't give a RATS ass about the Constitution.

It is the Conservatives with a wish list for changes to our beloved Constitution. I, like most Liberals, am happy with it as it is now

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Constitution, which all Liberals love and respect, requires a majority vote in the Senate with the Vice President as the tie breaker
Requiring a 60% vote before you can actually vote on a bill is circumventing our beloved Constitution

Says he who apparently has not read the Constitution.

Article I, Section 5:
...Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings...

This includes requiring a super-majority vote to end debate.

 

[Trajan]

If a bill is so damn good it should take 70 to 75 votes to pass in the senate. Our bills are costly, feel good legislation, worthless measures that benefit no one.

I for one would love to see the 17th Amendment abolished, and the Election of Senators returned to the State Legislatures as intended.

Sure ...let Senators be selected in back room deals

Power to the people....where it belongs

and a state legislature isn't close enough for you?

I thought you loved the const?....oh, only until you don't love it, but love an amendment more...got it...

 

[daveman]

The Constitution, which all Liberals love and respect, requires a majority vote in the Senate with the Vice President as the tie breaker

Requiring a 60% vote before you can actually vote on a bill is circumventing our beloved Constitution

Good stuff there, rw. Now that's funny.

The Constitution was written by Liberals

Yes. Classical liberals. Not Statists.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I for one would love to see the 17th Amendment abolished, and the Election of Senators returned to the State Legislatures as intended.

Sure ...let Senators be selected in back room deals

Power to the people....where it belongs

and a state legislature isn't close enough for you?

I thought you loved the const?....oh, only until you don't love it, but love an amendment more...got it...

The point of the state legislatures electing the Senate was so that the states themselves would have representation in Congress. Given that we live in a Federal Republic where the states have sovereign power over the Federal government, this only makes sense.

Why the states ratified the 17th Amendment is beyond all reason.

 

[daveman]

Will the Senate scrap the filibuster on January 5? - The Week

A large group of Democratic senators, led by Majority Leader Harry Reid, wants to reform the filibuster process on January 5, the first day of the new Congress — when, according to precedent, the incoming Senate majority can alter the rules by a simple majority vote without fear of the process itself being filibustered. Although Reid's exact plans are unknown, the changes would reportedly require legislators to be speaking on the Senate floor in order to block a proposed bill (see Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington). Will this work, and is it constitutional for Democrats to even be trying?

This is perfectly constitutional and there's nothing wrong with it.
Of course, as soon as the Dems have to suffer under it, they will whine.

Changing Senate rules is Constitutional

But having a rule you don't like isn't?

 

[Sallow]

Good stuff there, rw. Now that's funny.

The Constitution was written by Liberals

A lot of the founders were classical liberals. There is no comparison to that term and progressive/dems/liberals of today. They would laugh, jump on their clipper, and sail the hell away from this circus to start all over again.

"Classical Liberals" is a made up term by Conservatives. Liberalism is ever changing. It doesn't remain stuck in one era.

 

[rightwinger]

The Constitution, which all Liberals love and respect, requires a majority vote in the Senate with the Vice President as the tie breaker
Requiring a 60% vote before you can actually vote on a bill is circumventing our beloved Constitution

Says he who apparently has not read the Constitution.

Article I, Section 5:
...Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings...

This includes requiring a super-majority vote to end debate.

...Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings...

Which means they can change the rules at the start of a session