GOP To Filibuster Filibuster Reform

[Craig234]

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?

You can't read and are not rational. I explain some basic ways the situations are different, and you respond 'they're the same, what are the differences'.

Ideologues like you can't be talked to. I can point out the big yellow thing overhead and you say it's a star and stars come out at night, proving it's night.

So yes, I could discuss the idea of 'abuse' but I'd be wasting my time with you. You lack ears - to be polite. You ignroe what I said, and will continue to.

If Republicans announced tomorrow they'd filibuster every bill and have no conditions where they vote yes period, you would be here saying it's not abuse of the rule if it served your ideology.

Note how *you* don't answer your own question with what percent is abuse - where 70% or major legislation is too low for you? You don't understand it's not a number, or you wouldn't ask for one.

No matter how carefully I explain to you a difference in uses of the filibyster, your idology says, "Dems are bad and therefore anything Republicans did wrong was a legitimate counter to worse Democrat behavior".

That's ideology. A smell you have gotten used to the way you do your own smell if you don't showed for weeks. You aren't asking questions. You are burying your head in the sand to protect your 'team'.

 

[Wreckem]

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.

What exactly have the Republican's filibustered. No filibuster has taken place yet. Tell me which party filibustered last? The GOP have talked about filibustering, but none has taken place yet. And I dont see them filibustering a bill once in two decades "overuse."

Up until Brown won, the GOP hasnt had the ability to filibuster in the Senate under Obama.

The closet thing the GOP has come to filibuster under Obama was in the House when Minority Leader spoke over his partys "allotted time" for the Cap and Trade debate, but the paralimentarian smacked down Rat Waxler because the Majority and Minority Leaders are given unlimited to speak. Bohner wasnt trying to filibuster, he was trying to make a fool out of the Dems, which seems to of worked because Cap and Trade appears to be dead with the Senate not planning on taking it up in 2010.

And the way Senate rules are, a simple majority does NOT work for changing Senate Rules.The Senate Rules start a 2/3 majoritity is needed to CHANGE the rules. The Republicans do not need to filibuster changing the rule. A simple majority does NOT change a Senate Rule. On a straight up and down vote for changing the Senate rules fails period because it NEEDS 67 votes to pass. The "nuclear" option cannot be used to over ride the 2/3 majority required for changing Senate rules. It can be used for Healthcare but that would cost the Democrats even more seats.

 

[werepossum]

What exactly have the Republican's filibustered. No filibuster has taken place yet. Tell me which party filibustered last? The GOP have talked about filibustering, but none has taken place yet. And I dont see them filibustering a bill once in two decades "overuse."

Up until Brown won, the GOP hasnt had the ability to filibuster in the Senate under Obama.

The closet thing the GOP has come to filibuster under Obama was in the House when Minority Leader spoke over his partys "allotted time" for the Cap and Trade debate, but the paralimentarian smacked down Rat Waxler because the Majority and Minority Leaders are given unlimited to speak. Bohner wasnt trying to filibuster, he was trying to make a fool out of the Dems, which seems to of worked because Cap and Trade appears to be dead with the Senate not planning on taking it up in 2010.

And the way Senate rules are, a simple majority does NOT work for changing Senate Rules.The Senate Rules start a 2/3 majoritity is needed to CHANGE the rules. The Republicans do not need to filibuster changing the rule. A simple majority does NOT change a Senate Rule. On a straight up and down vote for changing the Senate rules fails period because it NEEDS 67 votes to pass. The "nuclear" option cannot be used to over ride the 2/3 majority required for changing Senate rules. It can be used for Healthcare but that would cost the Democrats even more seats.

Under the revised, more civilized Senate rules, failure to vote for cloture is a filibuster. The Dems have adopted the position that if the Pubbies don't actively move the Dems' legislation along - even though they did not need a single Republican vote prior to Brown's victory - then the Pubbies are "obstructionist." The entitlement mentality that the Dems have pushed for decades has finally taken over the Dems themselves; they now feel entitled to pass their legislation with bipartisan support regardless of what the other party thinks of it, or even what their own party thinks of it.

I say restore the filibuster to 67 votes, but return the requirement to actually speak on the floor. That raises the onus on the filibustering Senators but also stimulates the majority to compromise, as all Senate business would be shut down during the filibuster.

I suspect however that, just like Democrats in Massachusetts changed the rules back and forth to their own political advantage, so too will the Senate leadership change the rules about the rules to allow them to pass legislation by buying 51 Senators rather than 60. If so, then I suspect equivalent results at election time, unless the Dems can create another big Democrat voting block, maybe illegal aliens or convicted felons. In a way this is replaying King of the Ball versus Queen of the Ball all over again, except now the American people are actually paying attention. Well, some of us.

 

[Double Trouble]

You can't read and are not rational. I explain some basic ways the situations are different, and you respond 'they're the same, what are the differences'.

Ideologues like you can't be talked to. I can point out the big yellow thing overhead and you say it's a star and stars come out at night, proving it's night.

So yes, I could discuss the idea of 'abuse' but I'd be wasting my time with you. You lack ears - to be polite. You ignroe what I said, and will continue to.

If Republicans announced tomorrow they'd filibuster every bill and have no conditions where they vote yes period, you would be here saying it's not abuse of the rule if it served your ideology.

Note how *you* don't answer your own question with what percent is abuse - where 70% or major legislation is too low for you? You don't understand it's not a number, or you wouldn't ask for one.

No matter how carefully I explain to you a difference in uses of the filibyster, your idology says, "Dems are bad and therefore anything Republicans did wrong was a legitimate counter to worse Democrat behavior".

That's ideology. A smell you have gotten used to the way you do your own smell if you don't showed for weeks. You aren't asking questions. You are burying your head in the sand to protect your 'team'.

Thanks for proving my point with your post. In other words, you keep saying it's abuse, but you have nothing to back it up other than "they are doing it for reasons I don't like, therefore it must be abuse". If you have no objective measure of what is abuse, who exactly is supposed to be the arbiter of what is abuse and what isn't? Oh yeah, that's right, the voting public. They can and do decide -- with their votes. We'll just have to see when the next election roles around. If the public is sick of the republicans 'abuse' of the filibuster, they'll let them know, just like they let them know in 2006.

 

[Craig234]

Thanks for proving my point with your post. In other words, you keep saying it's abuse, but you have nothing to back it up other than "they are doing it for reasons I don't like, therefore it must be abuse". If you have no objective measure of what is abuse, who exactly is supposed to be the arbiter of what is abuse and what isn't? Oh yeah, that's right, the voting public. They can and do decide -- with their votes. We'll just have to see when the next election roles around. If the public is sick of the republicans 'abuse' of the filibuster, they'll let them know, just like they let them know in 2006.

No, you are just tedious with the argument. How refreshing - the old 'it's subjective give me objective proof' nonsense.

Yes give me objective proof Disneyland is a better vacation desitnation than jumping in a septic tank.

If people are nt able to agree on basic reasonable things, there's not much point talking.

I could answer you - I could spennd the time diggingup the specific text why the filibuster was created and its intended use, and I could contrast that with how the Republicans are usimg it now, for a minority veto.

I've already supplied plenty of info, showing the contrast betweeen how it's been used as intended and the current record-setting rate where 70% of all major legislation it's used.

I cold explain the common sense notion, as I have repeatedly, of how 40 Senators is among the weakest position a party has histrically from losing electins, and that 40 is not supposed to veto 70%.

But you have ignored it all to be tedious, and you make it clear that nothing short of a unanimous vote in the Senate with the Republicans agreeing it's abuse signed in their own blood will make you agree.

And you are wasting my time at that pointwith yor 'huh uh' refusal to be reasonable.

 

[Craig234]

Under the revised, more civilized Senate rules, failure to vote for cloture is a filibuster. The Dems have adopted the position that if the Pubbies don't actively move the Dems' legislation along - even though they did not need a single Republican vote prior to Brown's victory - then the Pubbies are "obstructionist." The entitlement mentality that the Dems have pushed for decades has finally taken over the Dems themselves; they now feel entitled to pass their legislation with bipartisan support regardless of what the other party thinks of it, or even what their own party thinks of it.

I say restore the filibuster to 67 votes, but return the requirement to actually speak on the floor. That raises the onus on the filibustering Senators but also stimulates the majority to compromise, as all Senate business would be shut down during the filibuster.

I suspect however that, just like Democrats in Massachusetts changed the rules back and forth to their own political advantage, so too will the Senate leadership change the rules about the rules to allow them to pass legislation by buying 51 Senators rather than 60. If so, then I suspect equivalent results at election time, unless the Dems can create another big Democrat voting block, maybe illegal aliens or convicted felons. In a way this is replaying King of the Ball versus Queen of the Ball all over again, except now the American people are actually paying attention. Well, some of us.

By 'Democrats in Massachussetts changing the rules back and forth for their benefit', you mean 'did not change the rules back for their own benefit resulting i the election of Scott Brown'. Glad you're honest.

 

[Craig234]

What exactly have the Republican's filibustered. No filibuster has taken place yet. Tell me which party filibustered last? The GOP have talked about filibustering, but none has taken place yet. And I dont see them filibustering a bill once in two decades "overuse."

Up until Brown won, the GOP hasnt had the ability to filibuster in the Senate under Obama.

The closet thing the GOP has come to filibuster under Obama was in the House when Minority Leader spoke over his partys "allotted time" for the Cap and Trade debate, but the paralimentarian smacked down Rat Waxler because the Majority and Minority Leaders are given unlimited to speak. Bohner wasnt trying to filibuster, he was trying to make a fool out of the Dems, which seems to of worked because Cap and Trade appears to be dead with the Senate not planning on taking it up in 2010.

And the way Senate rules are, a simple majority does NOT work for changing Senate Rules.The Senate Rules start a 2/3 majoritity is needed to CHANGE the rules. The Republicans do not need to filibuster changing the rule. A simple majority does NOT change a Senate Rule. On a straight up and down vote for changing the Senate rules fails period because it NEEDS 67 votes to pass. The "nuclear" option cannot be used to over ride the 2/3 majority required for changing Senate rules. It can be used for Healthcare but that would cost the Democrats even more seats.

The Republicans have blocked legislation using the threat of filibuster, whixh is how it works now however much some people want to debate the idea of 'actual filibuster'.

 

[theeedude]

LOL, entitlement mentality? Majority party is entitled to enact policy, elections have consequences.

 

[TheSlamma]

So what happens when the dumbacrooks are a minority again? the repuklicans just start passing BS left and right and we're screwed?

 

[Robor]

So what happens when the dumbacrooks are a minority again? the repuklicans just start passing BS left and right and we're screwed?

They'll roll over. :-/

 

[Craig234]

They'll roll over. :-/

Moreover, they'll threaten to filibuster one thing, Brisol Palin as a Supreme Court Justice, and the Republicans will launch a national attack calling them obstructionist and end the filibuster.

 

[CrackRabbit]

I say restore the filibuster to 67 votes, but return the requirement to actually speak on the floor. That raises the onus on the filibustering Senators but also stimulates the majority to compromise, as all Senate business would be shut down during the filibuster.

That actually isn't a bad idea.
It would help bring the filibuster closer to it's original form not the stupidly over-used farce it is today.