mr president

[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.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

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.

you've not seen what?

when the one party is in charge, the other screams for bi-partisanship,and uses any tool in their power to continue to have a voice. then, when the other party assumes control, those formerly in charge forget everything they complained about as far as filibusters and the like, and also ask for bi-partisanship. it just makes me laugh to hear the same things being said, but those who didn't complain when dems used the filibuster and cried to be heard now suddenly don't like it. when the majority changes, so will the complainers-but the complains always stay the same.


if filibuster rules didn't need to be changed when democrats were the minority and used it, i don't understand the need to change it now. as for who uses it more, your perception is that the democrats didn't use it as much-that doesn't make it a reality. it doesn't matter really who uses that action more-it can and will be used by both sides.

regarding the fact that democrats control congress and the house, therefore they should rule absolutely (someone mentioned that above), i say hogwash. we have a multi-party system. everyone should have a voice, regardless of who won more seats.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

when the one party is in charge.

I thought you were talking specifically about filibuster rules, not the general entire political scene. Yes, the political scene is partisan.

if filibuster rules didn't need to be changed when democrats were the minority and used it, i don't understand the need to change it now. as for who uses it more, your perception is that the democrats didn't use it as much-that doesn't make it a reality.

It's not my perception, it is factual, by the actual numbers - read the numbers chart and senate vote chart on it I posted previously.

And btw, the Dems tried to change it previously (one Dem) when they had majority. Nobody was interested (not even the other Dems)

Today is a weird political day. George Will is defending Obama's national security and terrorism policy against Liz Cheney, Joe Lieberman is defending Obama's financial policy against McCain's Obama attack ads, and Michael Steele has not yet been fired

regarding the fact that democrats control congress and the house, therefore they should rule absolutely (someone mentioned that above), i say hogwash. we have a multi-party system. everyone should have a voice, regardless of who won more seats.

??? Nobody says they should rule absolutely. Yes, we have a multi-party system, and the minority party absolutely has a voice. What they don't have is the majority vote, what it takes to pass legislation. And they are acting like azzholes by coming right out and saying they are not only using filibuster to delay votes and require issues that already have more than enough votes to pass to require 60, not the simple majority required by the Constitution, on major legislation, but they will use it on every single thing, simply to try and "derail Obama's agenda". And they have. (again, refer to the actual numbers)

And that's costing us, the taxpayers, a whole lot of money for alot of whiney people who are unhappy they are no longer reflective of what the electoral majority wants.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

I thought you were talking specifically about filibuster rules, not the general entire political scene. Yes, the political scene is partisan.



It's not my perception, it is factual, by the actual numbers - read the numbers chart and senate vote chart on it I posted previously.

And btw, the Dems tried to change it previously (one Dem) when they had majority. Nobody was interested (not even the other Dems)

Today is a weird political day. George Will is defending Obama's national security and terrorism policy against Liz Cheney, Joe Lieberman is defending Obama's financial policy against McCain's Obama attack ads, and Michael Steele has not yet been fired



??? Nobody says they should rule absolutely. Yes, we have a multi-party system, and the minority party absolutely has a voice. What they don't have is the majority vote, what it takes to pass legislation. And they are acting like azzholes by coming right out and saying they are not only using filibuster to delay votes and require issues that already have more than enough votes to pass to require 60, not the simple majority required by the Constitution, on major legislation, but they will use it on every single thing, simply to try and "derail Obama's agenda". And they have. (again, refer to the actual numbers)

And that's costing us, the taxpayers, a whole lot of money for alot of whiney people who are unhappy they are no longer reflective of what the electoral majority wants.

nobody says that? i wish i had a nickel for every time i read that the dems won and are in charge, so suck it up.
as for using filibuster tactics costing us money, how so? do congressional salaries rise because they are engaging in debate? what's so wrong about forcing a debate before a bill is passed? both parties have the right, and both use it.. so what. i doubt that filibustering would ever keep a good bill from getting a vote. as for the health care bill, with it's thousands of pages that most haven't read, i think filibuster would be important. sorry, you'll fail in getting me to agree that this tactic should be removed. can it be abused? absolutely. there may come a time when the party now in power would like to have use of this tactic.

[Riot]

nobody says that? i wish i had a nickel for every time i read that the dems won and are in charge, so suck it up.

You might make it more clear when you say, "someone said" that you are not referring to the discussion we are having, and what other people are posting, but to stuff you've heard elsewhere in your life

as for using filibuster tactics costing us money, how so? do congressional salaries rise because they are engaging in debate?

No, the costs of keeping the Capital and Senate open, with all those concurrent employees, rises very quickly. It's estimated the Christmas week thing cost millions.

sorry, you'll fail in getting me to agree that this tactic should be removed. can it be abused?

I've never said filibuster should be removed. I certainly don't want it removed. It must remain. I'm quite in favor of changing cloture rules timing, as was discussed previously here - after three days, numbers required for cloture fall, after another three days, it falls further, etc. That will keep filibuster intact, but complete obstructionism forever impossible. I also agree that Senators that filibuster must do it from the floor and be physically present (remove the "in absence notification only" filibuster). Both parties have to be present for this, due to quorum calls, so everyone will be less likely to abuse the privilege. As it used to be