Reforming the Filibuster

[nehalem256]

I thought we were talking about the Senate?

Did the senate stop being part of congress?

 

[monovillage]

Did the senate stop being part of congress?

When did that 9% number come about? It's one I never saw. Better wash your hands if you want to use it.

 

[nehalem256]

When did that 9% number come about? It's one I never saw. Better wash your hands if you want to use it.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/things-popular-congress/story?id=17023092#.ULO_loc701I

Congressional approval rating listed as 10%. Close enough to 9% I think.

 

[Ausm]

You'll be singing a different tune if/when the Republicans pick up a slight majority in the Senate......... which is a very reasonable assumption.

:biggrin:

 

[monovillage]

I get 21%, over twice as high and more recent.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/158372/congress-approval-rating-ahead-elections.aspx

 

[monovillage]

:biggrin:

How's Gov. Walker doing for you after your recall ? lol,lol,lol

 

[Ausm]

How's Gov. Walker doing for you after your recall ? lol,lol,lol

He isn't going to make it another term and will most likely be indicted before his first term ends.....

 

[First]

It's not broken, don't fix it.

lol troll.

 

[OverVolt]

Its just the name of the game, no matter what the rules are, there is going to be a way to bend them. There are things alot worse that could result out of politics than just filibusters, so I think its fine to keep it the way it is.

Some guy who is a sore looser over getting filibustered wants to push this through probably.

 

[airdata]

I think filibuster was invented before we had all these blow hard elected officials working hard to stay in office so they can take bribes around the clock and vote on things without reading them.

Forget filibuster reform. The entire system needs to be reformed. No more hand outs. No more life time tenures on capitol hill.

 

[Brovane]

Completely agreed. This threaten the filibuster is non-sense.

I also agree. If you are going to filibuster you should have to stand-up and talk. This being able to simply put your name in is non-sense. You want to filibuster get up and talk,and talk. That way we can see if you are being a idiot about something. So that way the filibuster will only be used in extreme cases.

 

[Darwin333]

It's not broken, don't fix it.

I bet you would have a very different attitude if the makeup of the Senate was opposite of what it is today and the minority party filibustered just about every bill your side introduced.

 

[JEDIYoda]

The Republicans don't say "No" to everything. Lay the majority of the blame at the feet of Majority leader Reid. The Republican Senators are doing what they can to stop bad laws and bad nominations from being passed, it's their job.

hahahahaaaaa...yeah right...they were doing all they could to impede and hinder anything that was Democratic.....nice spin by the way...lolol

 

[CrackRabbit]

Bullshit, they have no problem at all passing sensible laws or reasonable appointments, the Republicans are trying to stop bad laws from being passed and extremists from being appointed. If the Democrats try to change the rules midstream they're going to get the Government lock-down they deserve.

The only bullshit is contained within your post.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

It will never be fixed as the Democrats are afraid it will hurt them should the Republicans regain control of the Senate.

If the Democrats are stupid enough to fall for this line, they deserve to keep getting blocked. It presumes that if the Democrats keep the filibuster as it is now, that the Republicans will also not change it the next time they get power. Which is a sucker's bet.

The Republicans don't say "No" to everything. Lay the majority of the blame at the feet of Majority leader Reid. The Republican Senators are doing what they can to stop bad laws and bad nominations from being passed, it's their job.

And it's the Democratic senators' job to prevent the filibuster from being abused to block everything under the sun. The filibuster is not a constitutional requirements -- it's a senate procedure that was set up for a specific purpose by agreement of both parties. If one of them is going to abuse it, as the GOP has for the last two years, it needs to be overhauled or eliminated.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

From what I understand is sometime after 9/11 Congress needed to get a bunch of stuff done, so they essentially agreed to new Senate rules that allowed Senators to essentially anonymously file paper work to have a filibuster. At the time it was done as a time saver however we can all see that its being misused and its time to reform it. Simply change the Senate rule (this does not involve the constitution) to go back to "stand your ass up and talk" to filibuster. That way we would all know EXACTLY whom is opposing a bill and WHY they oppose it. I feel that would prevent the useless filibusters to prevent the opposing side from passing good legislation and anyone whose main interest is to gum up the works would be exposed. If its an item none of us want passed then that Senator is the hero.
Once again this is my brief overview of it so I could be slightly off although I'm sure someone will let me know.

 

[monovillage]

I bet you would have a very different attitude if the makeup of the Senate was opposite of what it is today and the minority party filibustered just about every bill your side introduced.

I most likely would, but to lay 100% of the blame for all the procedural delays on the Republicans is garbage. Reid and other Democrats in the Senate have caused many of the problems themselves. Look up the procedural term "filling the tree" something Reid has used frequently.
This is just a single instance, there's many more.
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/232581-reid-continues-to-control-farm-bill-amendments

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I most likely would, but to lay 100% of the blame for all the procedural delays on the Republicans is garbage. Reid and other Democrats in the Senate have caused many of the problems themselves.

Did you even read that article you referenced?

Reid said that the reason he was bringing up the amendments through his procedural move was because otherwise he would have to file cloture on every piece of legislation that came up on the floor.

"I wish my friend was nearly as exercised over the year — 18 months on getting on a bill. It takes us a week on getting on a bill because we have to file a motion to invoke cloture on every time we proceed to a bill," Reid continued.

The GOP has abused the filibuster. They are the reason it needs to, and will be, changed.

 

[First]

Did you even read that article you referenced?



The GOP has abused the filibuster. They are the reason it needs to, and will be, changed.

Mono's a funny/sad partisan.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

I would make two changes:

1. Remove the ability to filibuster for confirmation of judges or cabinet members. My logic is that I don't mind if the Senate wants to limit itself by creating an additional hurdle above what the constitution requires, but judicial and cabinet appointments are primarily an executive function so they have effectively created an extra check on the executive branch that is not provided by the Constitution.

2. As others have said I would return to the old style that requires a member to actually speak. The current rule makes it too easy for the minority to obstruct.

 

[monovillage]

Did you even read that article you referenced?

The GOP has abused the filibuster. They are the reason it needs to, and will be, changed.

We'll just have to see how it all turns out. I don't think it's going to be pretty or a clear win for Democrats, it'll just turn uglier than it already is.

Thanks Obama!

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I don't think it's going to be pretty or a clear win for Democrats, it'll just turn uglier than it already is.

And what would that look like, exactly?

I don't see how the GOP can make this any uglier. That's the problem with becoming extremist -- eventually you run out of extremes to threaten with.

Thanks Obama!

How is this Obama's fault?

 

[Darwin333]

Filibuster should be reformed into a simple procedure that allows the minority the right of protest. Something along the lines of giving them extra floor time and ONLY allowing passage of the bill after 2 (approximately) full weeks of debate have continued on that specific item.

It should allow the delay of a bill, not the death of one.

I disagree. I think the filibuster should return to the way it originally was. You can keep debate open on the bill for 20 years if you want, so long as you can find a group of guys willing to continually debate it for that long. And I mean some asshole actually standing up and talking, not just saying they will or some other lazy bullshit.

 

[Moonbeam]

This reminds me of the time Nasrudin was sitting in a train station and a kid ran by and knocked off his turban. Punish him said a number of people sitting near by, but the Mulla replied, this is not how this is working out. A bit later the kid knocked off a soldier's helmet and the soldier shot him.

 

[K1052]

Fix the rule. Make them speak constantly.

Yep. Anyone from either party who wants to stop the workings of the body must hold the floor.