- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 43,602
- Reaction score
- 26,256
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) intends to introduce legislation that would take away the minority’s power to filibuster legislation.
Harkin has wanted to change the filibuster for years, but his move would come in the wake of Republican Scott Brown’s dramatic victory in Massachusetts. Brown’s victory cost Democrats their 60th vote in the Senate, and may have dealt a death blow to their hopes to move a massive healthcare overhaul. It could also limit President Barack Obama’s ability to move other pieces of his agenda forward.
Looks like Democrats are looking for another way to ram their health care bill through Congress. On the surface, it looks like a long shot, since modern Senate rules maintain that 67 votes are needed to change the rules. But there was a Supreme Court ruling in 1892 (US v. Ballin), that made only a simple majority necessary to accomplish it. Things could get really ugly here in the next few months, and possibly another case headed for the Supremes to decide.
Article is here.
I believe that, while Republicans are in the right at this time, it wasn't long ago (2005) that roles were reversed, and it was Republicans planning the "nuclear option" and Democrats screaming their heads off. The bad news is that Republicans are going to end up looking like hypocrites here, but the good news is so will the Democrats. LOL.
I also made a post on my blog about this.
Looks like Democrats are looking for another way to ram their health care bill through Congress. On the surface, it looks like a long shot, since modern Senate rules maintain that 67 votes are needed to change the rules. But there was a Supreme Court ruling in 1892 (US v. Ballin), that made only a simple majority necessary to accomplish it. Things could get really ugly here in the next few months, and possibly another case could be headed for the Supremes to decide.
Article is here.
I believe that, while Republicans are in the right at this time, it wasn't long ago (2005) that roles were reversed, and it was Republicans planning the "nuclear option" and Democrats screaming their heads off. The bad news is that Republicans are going to end up looking like hypocrites here, but the good news is so will the Democrats. LOL.
I also made a post on my blog about this.
Personally I think the 60 vote rule is being abused. Now it is the Republicans that is taking it to a new art, and before that it was the Democrats. From what I have read the Republicans have doubled the amount of filibusters in this Congress compared to the last Congress and that is a lot. Basically means the Senate gets nothing done.
So looking at it from a governance point of view, the filibuster rules are quite damaging.
The rule should be scrapped and replaced by new rules that cant be abused in the same way. As it stands now, one senator can block legislation forever if he wants too.... and that is unacceptable.
Of course this will just turn into another partisan crap fest as usual but hey one can hope that we remain civil and non partisan.
Democrats would be wise to dump Harry Reid now and elect a new majority leader.
source article said:More recently, Democrats used the filibuster when they were in the minority, while Republicans criticized the procedural rule. Democrats have increasingly criticized it in this Congress, though Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) are on record supporting its existence.
That is the way the American government works.
I always get a kick out of Europeans explaining how they think the American government should be.
I suppose you want our government to be socialist, and the people subjects like the rest of the Europeans.
Looks like Democrats are looking for another way to ram their health care bill through Congress. On the surface, it looks like a long shot, since modern Senate rules maintain that 67 votes are needed to change the rules. But there was a Supreme Court ruling in 1892 (US v. Ballin), that made only a simple majority necessary to accomplish it. Things could get really ugly here in the next few months, and possibly another case could be headed for the Supremes to decide.
Article is here.
I believe that, while Republicans are in the right at this time, it wasn't long ago (2005) that roles were reversed, and it was Republicans planning the "nuclear option" and Democrats screaming their heads off. The bad news is that Republicans are going to end up looking like hypocrites here, but the good news is so will the Democrats. LOL.
I also made a post on my blog about this.
Where were the Dems when they shafted Liberman?I think the dems are going to screw themselves on this.All it does is send the message is that it is okay when we do something but not you,so we are going to change the rules to suit us.Republicans were against the whole filibuster when they were in the majority and the democrats were for it when they were the minority but now roles are reversed. Its just like that **** with Massachusetts it was all good that the people got to replace a leaving senator when a republican(despite being a lib) but when the democrats were in control they seemed to be bothered by the fact the people could pick a replacement. This is one of the reasons why we need to end the two part monopoly.
I think they should let it die. Healthcare reform, but not this ugly duckling.
Tell us:Personally I think the 60 vote rule is being abused.
I believe that, while Republicans are in the right at this time, it wasn't long ago (2005) that roles were reversed, and it was Republicans planning the "nuclear option"
Hmm...If they do this just to pass the health care bill, they will lose their majority in November without question. And I think that they know that.
I think they should let it die. Healthcare reform, but not this ugly duckling.
Where do I state how it should be? All I am saying that the filibuster as it is today is grinding the US legislative process to a halt on so many fronts because of personal or partisan pives, often totally unrelated to the legislation at hand.
And because of this I suggest a different form of some kind that cant be used in the manner the filibuster is being used today.
I have no problem with a temporary block being put on legislation based on the merits of the legislation, but as it stands now we have Senators blocking everything from nominations to legislation based on personal issues often that have nothing to do with the legislation.
But regardless the blocking should be temporary
That one senator can block critical nominations, legislation is a dictatorship of the minority of one to the extreme.
Yea, its very convoluted. :doh
It's not complicated.
The problem with the health care industry in this country is the government.
Get the government out of the way, things improve.
It's true for literature, it's true for whiskey, it's true for sex, why shouldn't that be true for health care?
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?