“Filibuster Reform” Is Misleading

[longknife]

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.

 

[PhineasTBluster]

I wonder if Harry would have been this eager to change the rules had the Republicans taken over the Senate? My money says, "NOT!."

 

[konradv]

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?

 

[waltky]

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...

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.

Mr. Reid’s vow to change the rules at the beginning of the next Congress, using an opening-day procedure when the rules can be rewritten by a majority vote, has turned into a major fight in the Senate this week, with Republicans saying he is gutting time-tested rules of the chamber to achieve political gain. It’s not clear whether Mr. Reid, Nevada Democrat, has enough support from within his own caucus to make the change. “We’re working on it,” chief vote-counter Sen. Richard J. Durbin told The Washington Times on Tuesday — but he has made substantial headway even with his party’s senior members. “The Republicans have made the Senate dysfunctional, and I have asked my caucus to support simple changes,” Mr. Reid said.

Senators have multiple chances to filibuster a bill — first before it comes to the floor and again before it passes the chamber. The burden is on the majority to muster 60 votes to end a filibuster. Mr. Reid is proposing eliminating that first chance at a filibuster, which would mean just a simple majority would be required to bring legislation to the floor, and he is proposing that senators who want to block legislation should have to take to the floor and speak. That also could discourage some filibusters.

Democrats will hold a 55-45 majority next year, including a number of young lawmakers eager to change the filibuster rules. But even long-serving Democrats who have served in the minority, where the filibuster is the key tool, are warming to the idea of changing it. Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat in his fourth term, said the changes would bring accountability to filibusters. “The idea that you have to actually stand there and be personally accountable makes sense to me,” he said.

Meanwhile Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat who won her fifth term this month, said legislation that follows regular rules shouldn’t be filibustered before it even gets to the floor. “I think if something comes out of committee and goes to the floor, it ought to have a chance to be discussed, not to have to go through cloture just to have a debate on the floor of the United States Senate,” she said. “We’re here to debate, and we’re here to vote.”

Read more: Support grows for curbing filibuster - Washington Times Support grows for curbing filibuster - Washington Times

 

[whitehall]

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.

 

[mamooth]

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.

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.

 

[onecut39]

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.

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. At last someone who knows what they are talking about.

 

[mjollnir]

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.

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.

Boom.

Thanks for taking the time to write that.

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

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

That's the point of the reform.

 

[oldfart]

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.

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.

 

[RightNorLeft]

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.

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.

If you read other sources of this story it explains that it does not take any of the republicans rights away it stops the minority from keeping any bills from even getting to an up or down vote and thats what theyve been doing for the last 4 yrs