Reforming the Filibuster

[EagleKeeper]

Originally Posted by Thump553

You do realize that roughly 9% of the American public agrees with your assessment. Congress is a broken, dysfunctional institution and the two major problems are the supereasy filibuster and pocket vetos.

Pocket veto's do not come from Congress. They are what the President does not want to address publicly.

From Wiki:

A pocket veto is a legislative maneuver in lawmaking that allows a president or other official with veto power effectively to exercise that power over a bill by taking no action

[Farang]

Originally Posted by Thump553

As a side point to further emphasize the need for reform of Senate rules-it is reported two Senators will poket veto Rice if she is nominated for Sec of State (presumably McCain and his BFF).

A pocket veto is when Congress places a bill on the President's desk and he essentially ignores it. Instead of signing it or 'stamping' a veto on it. Or, in other words, he puts it in his pocket and walks away. Same effect as a veto.

[RampantAndroid]

Originally Posted by Thump553

You do realize that roughly 9% of the American public agrees with your assessment. Congress is a broken, dysfunctional institution and the two major problems are the supereasy filibuster and pocket vetos.

Yes this will come around to bite the Dems when they lose their Senate majority, but frankly a lot more of us are concerned with having a functional effective government. I'll choose country over party every time.

You lose all rights to comment on politics for a while. Go learn what a pocket veto is.

[GarfieldtheCat]

Originally Posted by monovillage

Excuse the link, but it was the first story I saw about the Senate 2014 race since this thread was opened.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/colum...dates-20121128

Where is all that proof that supports your trolling that the GOP isn't being obstructionist?

I posted plenty of facts, and all you did was be a baby and try name calling.

Hint: Name calling isn't a legitimate defense of a position.

So you gotta any proof yet? Or is this another "I know I'm trolling, and I know I can't defend my posts, so I am just moving on to my next troll attempt"?

[monovillage]

Originally Posted by GarfieldtheCat

Where is all that proof that supports your trolling that the GOP isn't being obstructionist?

I posted plenty of facts, and all you did was be a baby and try name calling.

Hint: Name calling isn't a legitimate defense of a position.

So you gotta any proof yet? Or is this another "I know I'm trolling, and I know I can't defend my posts, so I am just moving on to my next troll attempt"?

When have I said the GOP isn't being obstructionist? They're doing what they're doing for the good of the country, its their job and it's within the rules of the Senate.

I don't usually respond to you because you're a nasty little troll and don't usually deserve a response.

[JTsyo]

If you filibuster, you lose your seat. Make them put their money where their mouth is. If they truly think the bill is detrimental to the US, they should be willing to give up their seat for the good of all. I bet not one of them would.

[Moonbeam]

Originally Posted by monovillage

When have I said the GOP isn't being obstructionist? They're doing what they're doing for the good of the country, its their job and it's within the rules of the Senate.

You realize, of course, that this is exactly why Hitler killed all those Jews?

This is the essence of bigotry and blindness, the certainty that what one does one does because it's right. The answer for people like you, however, who have been stuffed full of nonsense, is to take away the pretext you use that what you do is legal. This is why the Senate must change the rules, so that you can't abuse them in the name of a false good. When your truth becomes a violence against others, they are going to use violence against you. The baby, your feeling that there is a good, is going out with the bath water of filth that washes off you. The Democrats also are going to act for the good of the country and make what they do within the rules. You can only see one truth and can't compromise. Welcome to your reality. We always create what we fear.

Be of good faith. In the darkness of night the light from the Moon can save you.

[monovillage]

Originally Posted by JTsyo

If you filibuster, you lose your seat. Make them put their money where their mouth is. If they truly think the bill is detrimental to the US, they should be willing to give up their seat for the good of all. I bet not one of them would.

Unconstitutional, but then when has a liberal ever given a damn about the Constitution?

[monovillage]

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

You realize, of course, that this is exactly why Hitler killed all those Jews?

This is the essence of bigotry and blindness, the certainty that what one does one does because it's right. The answer for people like you, however, who have been stuffed full of nonsense, is to take away the pretext you use that what you do is legal. This is why the Senate must change the rules, so that you can't abuse them in the name of a false good. When your truth becomes a violence against others, they are going to use violence against you. The baby, your feeling that there is a good, is going out with the bath water of filth that washes off you. The Democrats also are going to act for the good of the country and make what they do within the rules. You can only see one truth and can't compromise. Welcome to your reality. We always create what we fear.

Be of good faith. In the darkness of night the light from the Moon can save you.

Thanks Moonie, did you have a good Thanksgiving?

[CrackRabbit]

Originally Posted by monovillage

When have I said the GOP isn't being obstructionist? They're doing what they're doing for the good of the country, its their job and it's within the rules of the Senate.

I don't usually respond to you because you're a nasty little troll and don't usually deserve a response.

In other words; "I got nothin', as usual."

[monovillage]

Originally Posted by CrackRabbit

In other words; "I got nothin', as usual."

No, what i'm saying and have been saying in this thread is that the filibuster isn't broken and doesn't need to be fixed. Yes, it's been used more frequently since Obama took office, but it's the Republicans using the rules to stop bad legislation, nothing broken, it's the checks and balances our system uses to prevent tyranny.

It ain't broke, don't fix it.

[CrackRabbit]

Originally Posted by monovillage

No, what i'm saying and have been saying in this thread is that the filibuster isn't broken and doesn't need to be fixed. Yes, it's been used more frequently since Obama took office, but it's the Republicans using the rules to stop bad legislation, nothing broken, it's the checks and balances our system uses to prevent tyranny.

It ain't broke, don't fix it.

Oh, so you're just trolling then.

Checks and balances, that's rich.

[hal2kilo]

Originally Posted by CrackRabbit

Oh, so you're just trolling then.

Checks and balances, that's rich.

Really, its all checks no balances.

There is none so blind who will not see.

[monovillage]

Originally Posted by CrackRabbit

Oh, so you're just trolling then.

Checks and balances, that's rich.

Sorry, I didn't mean to use a term you didn't understand.
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/...s_and_balances

Maybe you can read it to Hal.

[CrackRabbit]

Originally Posted by monovillage

Sorry, I didn't mean to use a term you didn't understand.
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/...s_and_balances

Maybe you can read it to Hal.

I know what the term means and I know that the way you are using it is bullshit.
Perhaps you should try reading that encyclopedia entry for yourself.

[First]

Originally Posted by monovillage

I try to be honest, especially about my partisanship.

lulz troll.

[Moonbeam]

Originally Posted by monovillage

No, what i'm saying and have been saying in this thread is that the filibuster isn't broken and doesn't need to be fixed. Yes, it's been used more frequently since Obama took office, but it's the Republicans using the rules to stop bad legislation, nothing broken, it's the checks and balances our system uses to prevent tyranny.

It ain't broke, don't fix it.

It is tyranny of the minority when they block everything. The government of the people by the people and for the people was set up to function, not to do nothing because one group stands in the way. You are a member of a political party that opposes all government, not some imaginary bad government. All government is bad from the point of view of government haters. You can't have inmates running the asylum, my dear friend.

Nobody can truly enjoy Thanksgiving when there is so much need. I bought pre-pared thanksgiving dinner and was happy with that. But the dressing and gravy sucked. I used to make my own so, unfortunately, I know what good is.

[hal2kilo]

Originally Posted by monovillage

Sorry, I didn't mean to use a term you didn't understand.
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/...s_and_balances

Maybe you can read it to Hal.

No, I understand alot more than you do. I did not mean it in the literal sense.

[monovillage]

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

It is tyranny of the minority when they block everything. The government of the people by the people and for the people was set up to function, not to do nothing because one group stands in the way. You are a member of a political party that opposes all government, not some imaginary bad government. All government is bad from the point of view of government haters. You can't have inmates running the asylum, my dear friend.

Nobody can truly enjoy Thanksgiving when there is so much need. I bought pre-pared thanksgiving dinner and was happy with that. But the dressing and gravy sucked. I used to make my own so, unfortunately, I know what good is.

We also have to be cautious of the tyranny of the majority ( I always thought it was a shame that Clinton nixed the nomination of Guinier so quickly), but we all have a need to compromise in a functioning government. When Obama took office along with his chief of staff Rahm they pulled a number of partisan gaffes that cost them any credibility with the Republicans and have since done little to change that initial partisan perception. Even now the Obama administration is calling for tax increases now with cuts "later", maybe, sometime, we'll see suckers.
If we have a partisan war going on in D.C. then I see no reason for a one sided compromise by Republicans to Democrats, I'd rather see them go down fighting to the end.

I had my first Thanksgiving with a new grand son, it was an awesome time, sorry to hear yours wasn't that good, but be thankful for small blessings.

[CrackRabbit]

Originally Posted by monovillage

We also have to be cautious of the tyranny of the majority ( I always thought it was a shame that Clinton nixed the nomination of Guinier so quickly), but we all have a need to compromise in a functioning government. When Obama took office along with his chief of staff Rahm they pulled a number of partisan gaffes that cost them any credibility with the Republicans and have since done little to change that initial partisan perception. Even now the Obama administration is calling for tax increases now with cuts "later", maybe, sometime, we'll see suckers.
If we have a partisan war going on in D.C. then I see no reason for a one sided compromise by Republicans to Democrats, I'd rather see them go down fighting to the end.

I had my first Thanksgiving with a new grand son, it was an awesome time, sorry to hear yours wasn't that good, but be thankful for small blessings.

You started off so well with your first sentence and then went straight in to the bullshit.
The Republicans in the House and Senate were against anything Obama wanted to do even before he took office and have behaved like petulant children ever since.
Only after getting spanked (in the elections) have they even started to realize how they have been acting. Taking away their favorite toy (the filibuster) would be the next step in getting them to behave correctly.

[monovillage]

Originally Posted by CrackRabbit

You started off so well with your first sentence and then went straight in to the bullshit.
The Republicans in the House and Senate were against anything Obama wanted to do even before he took office and have behaved like petulant children ever since.
Only after getting spanked (in the elections) have they even started to realize how they have been acting. Taking away their favorite toy (the filibuster) would be the next step in getting them to behave correctly.

Yes, it's all the evil Republicans fault, they're bad and we need to destroy them because Democrats are good and pure and not at fault for any problems at all.

[CrackRabbit]

Originally Posted by monovillage

Yes, it's all the evil Republicans fault, they're bad and we need to destroy them because Democrats are good and pure and not at fault for any problems at all.

Not at all, but when they act like a bunch of children instead of adults maybe they should be treated as such.

[Farang]

Originally Posted by monovillage

We also have to be cautious of the tyranny of the majority ( I always thought it was a shame that Clinton nixed the nomination of Guinier so quickly), but we all have a need to compromise in a functioning government. When Obama took office along with his chief of staff Rahm they pulled a number of partisan gaffes that cost them any credibility with the Republicans and have since done little to change that initial partisan perception. Even now the Obama administration is calling for tax increases now with cuts "later", maybe, sometime, we'll see suckers.
If we have a partisan war going on in D.C. then I see no reason for a one sided compromise by Republicans to Democrats, I'd rather see them go down fighting to the end.

I had my first Thanksgiving with a new grand son, it was an awesome time, sorry to hear yours wasn't that good, but be thankful for small blessings.

I think there's a tendency to assume that Democrats and Republicans should be equally powerful because, well, that's just sort of how it sort of is most of the time in ebbs and flows.

The fact is there are 55 people who happen to affiliate with Democrats, and 45 people who affiliate with Republicans, and they control the Senate. They are chosen 2 from each state and those are the ones the people elected.

Same for the House. It's a group of people the public elected.

And the President. You get the point.

There is no tyranny of the majority here. The Senate is elected in a different way than the House and both are different from how the President is selected. There is also a judiciary that provides additional checks/balances.

Nowhere in this system does it say two parties must be allowed equal representation and power. The people decide that through elections, of course.

What the Democrats are saying is--if the spirit of cooperation is dead, and we're just bareknuckling it out from now on, then we're going to use the power we have the change the rules and take back majority rule in the Senate.

I don't see that as unreasonable. And I don't think any party, in this case Republicans are owed any kind of check just by virtue of being the opposition party. That is unfair to the voters who elected the body.

Moreover, the Senate has been majority rule for most of the history of its existence. Reid's changes are an attempt to return to normal.

[monovillage]

Originally Posted by Farang

I think there's a tendency to assume that Democrats and Republicans should be equally powerful because, well, that's just sort of how it sort of is most of the time in ebbs and flows.

The fact is there are 55 people who happen to affiliate with Democrats, and 45 people who affiliate with Republicans, and they control the Senate. They are chosen 2 from each state and those are the ones the people elected.

Same for the House. It's a group of people the public elected.

And the President. You get the point.

There is no tyranny of the majority here. The Senate is elected in a different way than the House and both are different from how the President is selected. There is also a judiciary that provides additional checks/balances.

Nowhere in this system does it say two parties must be allowed equal representation and power. The people decide that through elections, of course.

What the Democrats are saying is--if the spirit of cooperation is dead, and we're just bareknuckling it out from now on, then we're going to use the power we have the change the rules and take back majority rule in the Senate.

I don't see that as unreasonable. And I don't think any party, in this case Republicans are owed any kind of check just by virtue of being the opposition party. That is unfair to the voters who elected the body.

Moreover, the Senate has been majority rule for most of the history of its existence. Reid's changes are an attempt to return to normal.

Then Reid can exercise the Nuke option and we get to see how much good it does.

[Ausm]

Originally Posted by monovillage

Then Reid can exercise the Nuke option and we get to see how much good it does.

I am leaning toward leaving the Filibuster the way it is then if/when the Republicons gain the Senate then we can return the favor.