Reid now hold 7 point lead against Angle

[BostonPirate]

it just amazes me... she called a presser and then refused to answer any questions.

That kind of footage is like a million dollars worth of free election cash for Reid. It will be played over and over again all night on the news channels.

 

[NotThatCreative]

I don't see the problem. A law still has to pass the House and get signed by the Prez before it can actually become law.

It's hard to believe now that at one time 67% was needed for passage in the Senate. That was lowered to 60%, but even that's too high because we've become hopelessly polarized, and now what you have is essentially minority rule. What's the use of having an election if the minority calls the shots through filibusters?

So I think the filibuster has become antiquated, and needs to go.

It's hard to call the lack of lawmaking minority rule. The filibuster is there to do two things: slow things down (prevent knee-jerk reaction legislation, allow debate to be forced if it's desired by either side of the aisle) and prevent tyranny of the majority. It does make laws more difficult to pass. And that's a good thing. The Founding Fathers feared tyranny above all else, and mob rule second. The filibuster allows the minority a defense against mob rule.

The House is the chamber of the People. The Senate is something else. Direct election of senators is one of the biggest and most enduring mistakes this country's ever made. Taking away the filibuster effectively takes away the voice of the minority if both houses of Congress and the White House are all run by the same party. 47.1% of this country didn't vote for President Obama (though I was one of the 52.9% that did), is it really fair or just to have the opinion of over 100 million Americans mean nothing for 4 to 8 year spans of time, or longer?

If I had my way we'd up the threshold back to 67% and force consensus-building and cross-party activity. At such a high threshold the constant filibuster wouldn't be maintainable like it is now, because the concept of a loyal opposition would be laughable. For that is what we have right now. And that's not the way it was meant to be. Note, however, that both health care reform and financial reform were passed despite the power of this loyal opposition. Things are getting done at the 60-senator requirement even with an all-but-united opposition.

On a note about the thread's original topic, the Republican nominee here reminds me of the nomination of Senator Kerry in 2004. Leader Reid is hated very much in Nevada, and there's no reason the Republicans shouldn't have been able to take him down. But then they went and nominated her, and now he may hold onto his seat and that major propaganda victory is lost to the GOP.

 

[hotatlboi]

I disagree that direct election of Senators was a mistake but I agree in general that the filibuster is a good thing and should be kept.

If another lunatic right wing regime regains power, the Dems will swing back to loving the filibuster as they did under Bush.

 

[MercuryJones]

The filibuster is a good thing, even though it's being badly abused right now.

 

[CowboyBob]

The filibuster is a good thing, even though it's being badly abused right now.

Correct. And look who is abusing it.

 

[Kulindahr]

lol.... I read an article and the people of the state are saying it is definitely choose the lesser of two evils kind of year for them.

They should wise up and have "NOTA" on the ballot.

Kulindahr, they do that now in the House.

I don't see the problem. A law still has to pass the House and get signed by the Prez before it can actually become law.

It's hard to believe now that at one time 67% was needed for passage in the Senate. That was lowered to 60%, but even that's too high because we've become hopelessly polarized, and now what you have is essentially minority rule. Kulin, that goes against everything I stand for. What's the use of having an election if the minority calls the shots through filibusters?

So I think the filibuster has become antiquated, and needs to go.

I would not want to live in a country where 50%+1 can act without restriction. That would be the scenario Franklin and others feared: mob rule. It would result in chaos in our laws, as one party passed anything it wanted, then when the other got into the majority, it undid all those and passed what they wanted.

 

[Kulindahr]

The House is the chamber of the People. The Senate is something else. Direct election of senators is one of the biggest and most enduring mistakes this country's ever made. Taking away the filibuster effectively takes away the voice of the minority if both houses of Congress and the White House are all run by the same party. 47.1% of this country didn't vote for President Obama (though I was one of the 52.9% that did), is it really fair or just to have the opinion of over 100 million Americans mean nothing for 4 to 8 year spans of time, or longer?

And end direct election of senators. They're supposed to represent the state, and therefore were to be chosen by the state's leadership, not the people.

 

[JB3]

Correct. And look who is abusing it.

You won't win that argument. Democrats abused it under Bush, just like the republicans are now.

 

[BostonPirate]

You won't win that argument. Democrats abused it under Bush, just like the republicans are now.

there is no comparison in vollume or intent. the republicans have abused the constitution for almost two years.

they will pay for that in unexpected ways.

 

[JB3]

there is no comparison in vollume or intent. the republicans have abused the constitution for almost two years.

they will pay for that in unexpected ways.

Ha. You're really going to argue that the intent of democrats during the Bush admin was not to stop every legislative goal from being carried out? The intent back then is exactly the same as it is now. You do understand that democrats were the ones that changed the rules to allow for the abuse in the first place, right?

And you can't say its abusing the constitution; the constitution makes it plainly known that each house may establish its own set of rules. The senate has done that. They are definitely abusing the rules of the senate, but they're not abusing the constitution by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[BostonPirate]

I'm in too good of a mood to argue tonight, buddy...

I think really we are both right to a degree. I just think its time to get the level a bit higher... i think 2/3 of the senate for a filibuster is a good idea.

 

[BostonPirate]

well it makes sense that the same standard applied to overriding a veto would apply to the filibuster.

 

[CowboyBob]

You won't win that argument. Democrats abused it under Bush, just like the republicans are now.

Oh yeah?

Filibusters skyrocket under Republican minority in 110th Congress.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/31/republican-filibusters-skyrocket/

Very few people seem to remember what a real filibuster consists of. Senators who oppose a bill prevent a vote by holding the floor and speaking until they're blue in the face; no food, no water, and no sitting allowed. 50 years ago Strom Thurmond held the senate floor for over 24 hours to prevent a vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1957, sometimes actually speaking about the bill and at one point reading his grandmother's biscuit recipe.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100127165106AAn2jsJ

 

[JB3]

Oh yeah?

Filibusters skyrocket under Republican minority in 110th Congress.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/31/republican-filibusters-skyrocket/



http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100127165106AAn2jsJ

And yet you still won't win. No one's arguing that the republicans aren't abusing it. As a matter of fact, I said as much in one of my posts. What I'm telling you, and that you apparently refuse to admit, is that democrats did exactly the same thing while they were in the minority under Bush.

 

[CowboyBob]

Two wrongs don't make a right, JB.

Filibustering belongs in the dustbin of history along with the electoral college, the Whig Party, and powdered wigs.

Exactly Johann....

Their excuse for everything now is......"well Democrats did it when Bush was president."

Even tho they're wrong, that's their excuse.

 

[JB3]

Exactly Johann....

Their excuse for everything now is......"well Democrats did it when Bush was president."

Even tho they're wrong, that's their excuse.

How am I wrong? Democrats used it enough that, at that time, they set records for its use. And they did it for the exact reasons the republicans are using it now.

 

[hotatlboi]

^ To be fair, a constitutional amendment is really not the type of vote that this discussion is referencing, since the Republicans would not have had 67 votes on the actual measure even if it hadn't been filibustered.

 

[evanrick]

the Dems will swing back to loving the filibuster as they did under Bush.

Democrats love the filibuster?

The GOP has set consecutive filibuster records under Obama, so the filibuster is crack-cocaine to them.

When you filibuster unemployment, thats pretty low, even for republicans.

 

[hotatlboi]

Democrats love the filibuster?

Reid loved the filibuster when he was Minority Leader, yes.

He said this when Bush was in office.

Mr. President, the right to extended debate is never more important than when one party controls Congress and the White House. In these cases, the filibuster serves as a check on power and preserves our limited government.

For 200 years we've had the right to extended debate [i.e., filibuster]. It's not some procedural gimmick. It's within the vision of the founding fathers of our country.They established a government so that no one person and no single party could have total control.

Some in this chamber want to throw out 214 years of Senate history in the quest for absolute power. They want to do away with Mr. Smith, as depicted in that great movie, being able to come to Washington. They want to do away with the filibuster. They think they're wiser than our founding fathers. I doubt that that's true.

Now I fully agree that the Repubs have totally abused the filibuster to basically obstruct everything in the current session. That's quite apparent. I'm just saying the Dems loved having it available to them before if they needed to oppose something they felt was truly bad.

 

[BostonPirate]

lets not forget that in spite of the filibuster, historic things have happened

I think in spite of the filibuster, the legislation passed has been monumental.

healthcare had been the american presidency's dream since what... teddy roosevelt? I think he was the frist one that tried it.

source

t's still the stuff of history. Barack Obama has pulled off the most epic piece of social legislation since Lyndon B. Johnson got Medicare and Medicaid passed in 1965.

Every President since Teddy Roosevelt has dreamed of expanding health care coverage to most citizens, not just the oldest and poorest. The crusade has gone nowhere.

Even as savvy a pol as Bill Clinton, described to his face at a weekend gathering of Washington political elites as the Ghost of Health Care Past, couldn't get it done.

and we can't forget that he also passed one of the most comprehensive wall street reform bills of all time.

what we are doing is letting the republicans define the president. when historians and academics ranked him as 15 best so far, based on his actions, with only about 20 months in office, theey did not do so lightly.

the presidents effectiveness has been because the teabaggers and the media love to tango. as a past activist, i am aware of the relationship between the two types of organisations, and lets just say it is very close.

Obama has been successfull in spite of the filibuster, but that means that the country could be in a much better place if the republicans weren't playing such dirty politics.