- Joined
- Aug 26, 2007
- Messages
- 50,241
- Reaction score
- 19,243
- Location
- San Antonio Texas
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
the part in charge always threatens to get rid of the filibuster, this is nothing new.
frank's(house member where a simply majority rules) motives are so the democrats can pass every spending bill and law to suit themselves.
senate republicans wanted a change in the rule specifically because the democrats wouldn't allow an up or down vote for judicial nominees.
mtm1963
He wants to change the rules so that the GOP cannot filibuster the Healthcare Bill.
I think the filibuster is too important to ALL minorities, as that was what it was created for in the first place, and should be left just the way it is. It's a safe guard against the negative affects of "majority rule." Sure congressmen have used the filibuster to extend slavery and other bad legislation before but I think that's a small price to pay to ensure that the minority at least gets a voice.
No, the filibuster was created because there was a loophole in the rules. Someone changed to rule to remove speaking limits, and then someone took advantage of that much later. The founding fathers didn't intent a 60% threshold for legislation.
I wouldn't mind it being like in the olden days where you had to get up and read the phone book for hours to keep it going, but the modern day version where anyone can just decide to not let things go to vote without any actual actions on their part... not good.
It's 3/5 not 2/3, by the way, but I don't think we need it in most cases. It's contrary to the concept of a representative republic.True, but i think the 2/3 threshold is still a good idea nonetheless. It still acts as a safeguard.
Truthfully, I don't see any difference whether they're reading from the dictionary or not saying anything at all. They're still accomplishing the same thing, which is wasting time. However, I think it saves everyone much more time if they didn't read from the dictionary, which is a little more efficient that way I suppose.
Because filibusters back then weren't indefinite. Eventually you had to stop talking, one way or another.
No, the filibuster was created because there was a loophole in the rules. Someone changed to rule to remove speaking limits, and then someone took advantage of that much later. The founding fathers didn't intent a 60% threshold for legislation. I wouldn't mind it being like in the olden days where you had to get up and read the phone book for hours to keep it going, but the modern day version where anyone can just decide to not let things go to vote without any actual actions on their part... not good.
If the libs use this to pass the grotesquely unpopular health bill, it may cost them every independent and 20 percent of Democrats forever more.
There is no 60% threshold for legislation. At any time 51% can vote to eliminate that rule. They just run the risk of appearing to try to usurp power, especially when it's to pass something as unpopular as the health care bill.
It's 3/5 not 2/3, by the way, but I don't think we need it in most cases. It's contrary to the concept of a representative republic.
Because filibusters back then weren't indefinite. Eventually you had to stop talking, one way or another.
the part in charge always threatens to get rid of the filibuster, this is nothing new.
Why do politicians feel the need to politicize God?
Senators were also chosen by State Legislatures to protect the interests of the States.It's 3/5 not 2/3, by the way, but I don't think we need it in most cases. It's contrary to the concept of a representative republic.
Because filibusters back then weren't indefinite. Eventually you had to stop talking, one way or another.
..because the democrats wouldn't allow an up or down vote for judicial nominees.
Senators were also chosen by State Legislatures to protect the interests of the States.
I whole-heartedly support at least limiting the filibuster, no matter which party is in charge.
Republicans have done that also when they held power. Again, nothing new.
In an interview, Dean said Democratic unity is essential in the upcoming battle and that the party "absolutely" should be prepared to filibuster -- holding unlimited debate and preventing an up-or-down vote -- Bush's next high court nominee, if he taps someone they find unacceptably ideological.
"A nominee more extreme than Judge Roberts would be unacceptable to the Democratic caucus," said Reid spokesman Jim Manley, who added later: "You could expect a major fight on the Senate floor."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?