mr president

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Here you make the assumption that what is passed is what was promised.

That is a good point. We sure need to get a public option back in the healthcare bill.

[SOREHOOF]

I'll be back.

[timmgirvan]

me too.....busy day,but no football!

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

That is a good point. We sure need to get a public option back in the healthcare bill.

Then the Dems can resort to fillibuster as they get tossed out in droves.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Then the Dems can resort to fillibuster as they get tossed out in droves.

but that's apparently not nearly as terrifying.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

That is a good point. We sure need to get a public option back in the healthcare bill.

and call welfare 'the option to not work'

How about just call it what it is? Socialized Medicine. For those so PC their anus is oozing juices, Subsidized Medicine.

[miraja2]

There really needs to be some sort of Constitutional amendment outlawing the filibuster. Riot is correct in saying that the Republicans threaten to use it far more now than the Dems did in 2000-2006, but the Dems did do it quite a bit during that period. Whenever the Republicans regain control of Congress (which unfortunately they will at some point) the Dems will be all pissy about how often the Republicans did it to them, and they'll do it right back for every bill they don't like.
As much as the opposition (whomever it happens to be at the time) may not like a particular bill, if the majority of the Senate - along with the majority of the House and the president obviously - think something should become a law, or someone should become a judge, etc, then I think it should probably happen. This business about needing 60 votes is annoying.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by miraja2

There really needs to be some sort of Constitutional amendment outlawing the filibuster. Riot is correct in saying that the Republicans threaten to use it far more now than the Dems did in 2000-2006, but the Dems did do it quite a bit during that period. Whenever the Republicans regain control of Congress (which unfortunately they will at some point) the Dems will be all pissy about how often the Republicans did it to them, and they'll do it right back for every bill they don't like.
As much as the opposition (whomever it happens to be at the time) may not like a particular bill, if the majority of the Senate - along with the majority of the House and the president obviously - think something should become a law, or someone should become a judge, etc, then I think it should probably happen. This business about needing 60 votes is annoying.

for how long has the filibuster been around? also, i don't believe it's that 60 is needed for passage-but enacting filibuster is a way to force debate before a vote, right?

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Danzig

for how long has the filibuster been around? also, i don't believe it's that 60 is needed for passage-but enacting filibuster is a way to force debate before a vote, right?

The filibuster has been around for centuries, and has been used at times throughout the Senate's history (perhaps most famously when southern senators attempted to block the Civil Rights Acts in the 1960s). Basically it is used because of the rule that 60 votes are required for "cloture" which means the end of the debate and the bringing of the bill to the floor for an up and down vote.
It has always been around, but in the last decade both sides have begun to threaten to filibuster seemingly almost anything they disagree with, which means functionally you need 60 votes to get anything passed.
After a thorough debate, I think these people should vote "yes" on the cloture vote regardless of their opinion of the bill. If they disagree with the bill, they can simply register their dissent by voting "no" when the final bill comes up. Prohibiting the bill from even coming to the floor for a vote seems unjust to me.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by miraja2

The filibuster has been around for centuries, and has been used at times throughout the Senate's history (perhaps most famously when southern senators attempted to block the Civil Rights Acts in the 1960s). Basically it is used because of the rule that 60 votes are required for "cloture" which means the end of the debate and the bringing of the bill to the floor for an up and down vote.
It has always been around, but in the last decade both sides have begun to threaten to filibuster seemingly almost anything they disagree with, which means functionally you need 60 votes to get anything passed.
After a thorough debate, I think these people should vote "yes" on the cloture vote regardless of their opinion of the bill. If they disagree with the bill, they can simply register their dissent by voting "no" when the final bill comes up. Prohibiting the bill from even coming to the floor for a vote seems unjust to me.

one of my points is that it seems some only have an issue with the filibuster when it hamstrings their side. i don't suppose anyone knows offhand if any worthy bill was held up and never voted on because of the filibuster?

another point is, we are so impatient as a people. why the big hurry to rush to vote? what happened to the benefit of debate, of compromise, of finding a middle ground? perhaps this tactic is in use more these days because the attitudes of both parties has changed-and not necessarily for the better.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Danzig

one of my points is that it seems some only have an issue with the filibuster when it hamstrings their side. i don't suppose anyone knows offhand if any worthy bill was held up and never voted on because of the filibuster?

another point is, we are so impatient as a people. why the big hurry to rush to vote? what happened to the benefit of debate, of compromise, of finding a middle ground? perhaps this tactic is in use more these days because the attitudes of both parties has changed-and not necessarily for the better.

I am all for a thorough and vigorous debate. But I think both sides use the pretense of wanting to carry on a "real debate" as an excuse more than anything. What they really do is just get up there and engage in some political grandstanding. After awhile, I say let the bill be voted on and let the majority rule. Am I going to like the results whenever Republicans control the Senate? Probably not. But elections should have consequences, and if they won....so be it.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

one of my points is that it seems some only have an issue with the filibuster when it hamstrings their side.

For who? I've not seen that. The Dems stepped it up (misuing it) under the GOP, but certainly numerically clearly not to this extent, and they still tried to get changes to the Senate rules, and the GOP rebuffed it.

(Current filibuster rules are from 1975, and they are Senate parlimentary rules that can be easily changed).

The answer is to change the rules, and put them into effect in the future, like 2012, or 2014, when nobody knows for sure who will be in power in the Senate. That will be tried within the next year, I predict, and let's see who votes to obstruct that change.

[SOREHOOF]

Our Govt. was set up to move s l o w l y. It was designed so that even if one party had control of both Houses of Congress the minority party would still have a voice. What do you think the Founders of this great Nation would think of 2500 page Bills that in the words of one Democrat require "3 days and 3 lawyers to read" then they still don't know what it says if they even bother to read it at all? Do you think they would be proud of this bloated, power grabbing, overtaxing, entitlement loving, deceiving, meddling, Constitution ignoring, nanny state of a corrupt Govt.that cares more about 30 million people without healthcare insurance, a lot of whom are here illegally, or others who don't even want it, than the 30 million adult Americans who can't read or write even though we spend more tax dollars on education than most other countries spend on everything? The spineless weasels in D.C. care more about being "politically correct" than about just being correct.