GOP To Filibuster Filibuster Reform

[Double Trouble]

Let us examine the Patranus position of, "If the repubs simply sit there and use the filibuster on everything and the government does nothing, that's probably a good thing for all of us, that's when things go best. Gridlock in DC = good for the country, they can't screw things up further."

But I say au contrare, how quickly we forget, it was GWB&co policy that melted down the economy in the first place.

So quite clearly we need better governance, and in championing the defective policies of GWB&co impossible to change without filibuster reform, we are left with only the known defective policies of GWB&co left in place unchanged. Known failures locked in stone.

How crazy is that Petranus?????????????????????????? How is that good??????????????

Huh? That wasn't Patranus, that was my statement. And your argument against gridlock is essentially "but boooosh!". lol. You guys really need to come up with some other "logic". All these known failures locked in stone (to use your terms)... which ones exactly have the democrats tried to change but failed due to the filibuster? Oh yeah, none of them. The dems are just trying to push their agenda, as the repubs try to push their agenda. Don't you see it's all the same crap? Both sides just try to please their biggest contributors, and either way we as the public lose. The only way we win is when there's gridlock and neither side gets to screw things up.

 

[mav451]

Yeah nobody screws up, but nothing is fixed either. We need new politicians lol.

 

[Bird222]

If 90% of the legislature wanted to pass it, they could just pass a constitutional amendment.

Clueless.

He said 90% of the legislation not 90% of the legislature.

 

[Double Trouble]

And if 90% of the legistlation the majority wants to pass is good, and the minority blocks all of it for the purpose of preventing them from having any progress to run on, you say it'sa working great.

Whether something is good or not is in the eye of the beholder. You think socialism is wonderful, I don't. Either way, the senators are not abusing anything, they are using the rules the way the system was designed. You're just whining because you don't like the outcome.

Yes, abusing the rules for the outcome you foolishly think is good isn't just good, you say it's not abusing the rules at all. Again, abusing the rules for a 'good cause' is not abusing the rules.

So if they could hack in and break the voting sstem so votes can't be take, then didn't break the system, because the nation was better off when its government could not vote.

LOL. So, following the rules the way they are written is "abuse", and in your mind is the same thing as hacking and rigging the voting system, which is clearly illegal and against all the rules. Yep, you are clearly delusional.

Ye,s thye did nothing wrong, it's all up to the public. If you break in someone's house and steal their things, you didn't steal - it's up to them to have a good alarm.

Apparently you have a hard time figuring out the difference between someone doing something legal versus doing something illegal. To my knowledge no laws have been broken or senate rules violated by using established filibuster rules. Again, you just whine because you don't like the outcome.

The public tends not to hold them accountable for obstructionism. That doesn't mean it's not obstructionism, abusing the rules. The public elected them to 40 seats, not the majority.

That's because it's only "obstructionism" and abuse of the rules in your mind, not in that of the public. The public elected them to 40 seats, and they are doing exactly what they can do with 40 seats. Nothing more, nothing less. The majority can do all sorts of stuff, but in the end the minority can use a filibuster to stop something they think is bad. That's how it's supposed to work. That's how it's always worked. This is not some new rule they discovered.

The legislation being considered is supposed to be written such that enough senators (of either or both parties) vote for it. If that's done, there will be enough votes and the legislation will pass.

 

[Xellos2099]

Well if the legistlation being passes is execellent, of course they have to filibuster it. I'm not referring to the Senate bill, don't dodge the point being made.

I don't see much problem when Obama pass the credit card reform bill.

 

[Double Trouble]

I don't see much problem when Obama pass the credit card reform bill.

Yep. Legislation that is created with bipartisan support can pass without a problem. It's the legislation that is either left or right wing extreme that can't pass. Sounds perfect to me.

 

[Lemon law]

No double trouble, your argument is bullshit. When we have bad governance policies locked in place, we need improvement.

We can argue about what improvement is, but we can't argue about leaving known failure in place. All you argue for is leaving known horrible policy in place.

And nothing remotely resembling the more possibly valid argument that the government that governs least governs best.

Somehow you confuse the two arguments while throwing away the baby and retaining and embracing the very dirty and stinking bathwater.

 

[Double Trouble]

No double trouble, your argument is bullshit. When we have bad governance policies locked in place, we need improvement.

We can argue about what improvement is, but we can't argue about leaving known failure in place. All you argue for is leaving known horrible policy in place.

And nothing remotely resembling the more possibly valid argument that the government that governs least governs best.

Somehow you confuse the two arguments while throwing away the baby and retaining and embracing the very dirty and stinking bathwater.

What are these bad policies put in place by GWB and his minions that the dems have been trying so hard to legislate away but haven't been able to because of the evil filibusterers??

Legislation that has bipartisan support can pass. Legislation that is completely one-sided will get filibustered. And the problem is...?

 

[Craig234]

I don't see much problem when Obama pass the credit card reform bill.

Look closer, The bill ended up with a very bi-partisan vote, Senators had big political risks on this one by voting no.

But firs,t this is a bill the Republicans had no interest in passing - it wasn't done in their many years running Congress. Second, I have seen a report of the Republicans threatenig to filibusters the bill early on.

Third, Republicans and the industry did get many concessions in the bill to get this 'bi partisan' vote. For example, progressives wanted interest rate caps, and for the bill to take effect quickly.

Instead, the date was moved to 9 months after the billl was signed, giving banks time to hike rates and profit.

But relatively speaking, this bill did finally end up, in a weakened version, with a vite Republicans couldn't say no to. Democrats get the credit for the leadeship on it.

Each party has some issues they can use to force the other party on, to get in political trouble if they vote no. THere's a reason Bush scheduled his 'Iraq inspectors' bill two weeks before the congressional election.

 

[dmcowen674]

how quickly we forget, it was GWB&co policy that melted down the economy in the first place.

That's the problem, the Republicans will never admit to that because they do well personally at the expense of the country.

 

[Corn]

I happen to disagree with Double Trouble, the filibuster may be a decent tactic to use rarely, but when its used all the time, its not such a good idea because it creates a tyranny of the minority and total grid lock where nothing can be done. The filibuster may have worked fine in the past but its current and total overuse threatens its purpose.

As it is, what the democrats lack is lock step party unity, so a decent balance of power is maintained as it is.

Your hypocrisy is nearly boundless! You were singing a different tune before:

I just thank God that there are still some rational Republicans left in the Senate---and the so called gang of 14 would side against anyone trying to eliminate the filibuster.

Sometimes time honored customs and things like the US Constutition look expedient to scrap---but, by in large, they have served us well over the years.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=1948779&highlight=filibuster

 

[Craig234]

Your hypocrisy is nearly boundless! You were singing a different tune before:



http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=1948779&highlight=filibuster

He wasn't hypocritical The situations were very different - the Dems blocking a tiny percentage of the worst, most radical judicial nominees versus the veto tyranny of 40 abusing the rule at record amounts.

 

[ProfJohn]

It takes 41 Senators to block passage of bills in the Senate.

The Democrats have had a 60 vote majority for the past year and yet they still can't get anything through congress.

Their problem lies within their party, not within the Republican Party.

 

[Craig234]

It takes 41 Senators to block passage of bills in the Senate.

The Democrats have had a 60 vote majority for the past year and yet they still can't get anything through congress.

Their problem lies within their party, not within the Republican Party.

Yes, if 40 Republicans and 5 Democrats do bad, you weigh the blame 100% Democrats, 0% Republican.

 

[Corn]

He wasn't hypocritical The situations were very different - the Dems blocking a tiny percentage of the worst, most radical judicial nominees versus the veto tyranny of 40 abusing the rule at record amounts.

You idiot, of course the situations were very different. The Dem's were the ones using the filibuster then, now its the Rep's.

 

[Throckmorton]

You idiot, of course the situations were very different. The Dem's were the ones using the filibuster then, now its the Rep's.

Are you joking? The Republicans clearly have no desire to work in a bipartisan manner. It's in their political interests to obstruct and create fear to justify their obstruction.

 

[Corn]

Are you joking? The Republicans clearly have no desire to work in a bipartisan manner. It's in their political interests to obstruct and create fear to justify their obstruction.

Waaaaaahhhhhh!!!!!!!!!! Clearly you are a whiner and your objectivity is colored by your own bias. What you see as Republican disinterest in bipartisanship, I (and apparently a lot of MA residents) see as congress ramming horrible closed door legislation down our throats without so much as allowing for any reasonable debate regarding such. Get over it, crybaby.

 

[Double Trouble]

He wasn't hypocritical The situations were very different - the Dems blocking a tiny percentage of the worst, most radical judicial nominees versus the veto tyranny of 40 abusing the rule at record amounts.

In your warped mind, it's abuse when the republicans doing it, it's wonderful when the good dems use it to fight the evil republican legislation. Newsflash, it's the same thing, the only thing that's changed is which party is in the minority and thus using the only tool they have to block the other parties' legislation.

Also, with the term "abusing" being thrown around all the time... can you define please what level of filibuster use is "abuse"? If the republicans use it to block 10% of legislation, is that abuse? How about 20%? How about 30%? How about 50%, how about 70%? 80%? 100%? Then, are the percentages the same for when the dems use it? Does the percentage of crappy proposed legislation figure into it? Is it abuse if the dems filibuster 50% of legislation because they think it's bad legislation? How about if the repubs do the same?

 

[Rainsford]

You seem to think that the "nuclear option" is settled.

Read a little more closely:



I.e., if the Dems invoke it in the senate it'll go to the SCOTUS (unless they refuse to hear it).

In the meantime Congress will effectively be shut down and in a Constitutional crisis.

There are a whole lot of good reasons not to do this. After MA you really think the Dems wanna pull this to ram through a HC bill?

Besides I personally don't all that many Dem senators wanna go there. They realize that when the Repubs take control of Senate (which they surely will at some point) the 'shoe will be on the other foot'. I don't think they wanna be powerless when the Repubs hold 50 seats and the VP (who would vote in the case of a tie) or 51 seats.

Fern

Wasn't the shoe on the other foot just a few years ago? When the Republicans last controlled the Senate, they couldn't WAIT to exploit their majority and tell Democrats to sit down and shut up. The shoe is on the other foot right now, and I think it's pretty funny to see the roles essentially reversed, with basically the same arguments being deployed by both sides.

 

[Moonbeam]

The filibuster is a way for a small number of idiots to prevent any progress in the country and in time that require rapid change, to thus destroy the nation.

It is also a way to prevent a large number of idiots from destroying the nation in times when large numbers of idiots are elected.

It is an especially interesting conundrum considering the likelihood that almost everybody's opinion as to which is which at any one time is accidental.

 

[Robor]

I don't see much problem when Obama pass the credit card reform bill.

LOL... The credit card bill was a piece of crap.

 

[Robor]

Waaaaaahhhhhh!!!!!!!!!! Clearly you are a whiner and your objectivity is colored by your own bias. What you see as Republican disinterest in bipartisanship, I (and apparently a lot of MA residents) see as congress ramming horrible closed door legislation down our throats without so much as allowing for any reasonable debate regarding such. Get over it, crybaby.

It will be posts like these that will be quoted when the shoe is on the other foot.

 

[Double Trouble]

Wasn't the shoe on the other foot just a few years ago? When the Republicans last controlled the Senate, they couldn't WAIT to exploit their majority and tell Democrats to sit down and shut up. The shoe is on the other foot right now, and I think it's pretty funny to see the roles essentially reversed, with basically the same arguments being deployed by both sides.

Yep, that's exactly what it is. I thought the repubs pushing to "go nuclear" against the minority dems was stupid, and I think the dems pushing to shut down the repubs is equally stupid. How quickly people forget. Nobody seems to learn the lesson that the shoe will inevitably be on the other foot at some point in the future. It might be soon, it might not, but at some point the shoe will be on the other foot.

 

[Corn]

It will be posts like these that will be quoted when the shoe is on the other foot.

What are you talking about. The shoe was on the other foot prior to 2006. My post history here predates that by quite a bit. Good luck searching!

 

[Zebo]

MAster archiver Corn pwned again. Craig LL et al will be calling to tar a feather blue dogs who form their own gang of X later this year. Just wait.