Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(LA Times)   The filibuster can be eliminated by the majority party   (latimes.com) divider line 159
    More: Interesting, majority party, Strom Thurmond, filibusters, Goes to Washington, public laws, American Law, U.S. Senate  
•       •       •

3802 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Nov 2012 at 11:26 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



159 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-26 01:03:16 PM  
The filibuster needs to go. People who worry about their side being out-of-power need to stop being pussies and accept that elections have consequences.
 
2012-11-26 01:04:28 PM  

imontheinternet: the Supreme Court would strike it down, even under an extreme original intent or textualist view.


Please show me an example of the Supreme Court's willingness to opine on the operating rules of either the House or Senate, within the last 100 years or so.

Go on.
 
2012-11-26 01:07:42 PM  
The filibuster doesn't need to go, Senators need to grow balls and actually call the minorities bluff every once in a while. In the last session of Congress, there was only one filibuster. One. Carried out by that ultra-Conservative n0bama fanatic Bernie Sanders. The right only ever threatened a filibuster, but never actually did one.

Now, if you want to get rid of anonymous holds on nominees, be my guest.
 
2012-11-26 01:09:31 PM  

imontheinternet: It means that when specific exceptions are given to the regular rule, one should interpret those examples as being an exhaustive list. The Constitution provides such a list of bills that require a supermajority, and everything else was placed under majority rule. If the House or Senate sought to usurp the Constitution by replacing majority rule with unanimity, the Supreme Court would strike it down, even under an extreme original intent or textualist view.


One other flaw: Senate rules require a supermajority for internal discussion of a measure, NOT for final passage. This is an important point, and one that assuredly SCOTUS would avail itself. The Constitution says that each house may determine the rules of their proceedings. Accepting your point, either the constitution contains a potential contradiction, or a Senate rule calling for a supermajority to permit debate is not the same as a bill calling for a supermajority. The two things you are trying to compare are not equal.
 
2012-11-26 01:10:39 PM  
It can be, but only if that party is starting to believe its own fantasies about a permanent majority: a sure sign that it needs to be removed from power.
 
2012-11-26 01:11:29 PM  

Galloping Galoshes: imontheinternet: It means that when specific exceptions are given to the regular rule, one should interpret those examples as being an exhaustive list. The Constitution provides such a list of bills that require a supermajority, and everything else was placed under majority rule. If the House or Senate sought to usurp the Constitution by replacing majority rule with unanimity, the Supreme Court would strike it down, even under an extreme original intent or textualist view.

One other flaw: Senate rules require a supermajority for internal discussion of a measure, NOT for final passage. This is an important point, and one that assuredly SCOTUS would avail itself. The Constitution says that each house may determine the rules of their proceedings. Accepting your point, either the constitution contains a potential contradiction, or a Senate rule calling for a supermajority to permit debate is not the same as a bill calling for a supermajority. The two things you are trying to compare are not equal.


Just out of curiosity, where did you get your GED in law?
 
2012-11-26 01:15:39 PM  
Save Gridlock!!

vote 'no' on filibuster reform.
 
2012-11-26 01:15:49 PM  

Galloping Galoshes: imontheinternet: the Supreme Court would strike it down, even under an extreme original intent or textualist view.

Please show me an example of the Supreme Court's willingness to opine on the operating rules of either the House or Senate, within the last 100 years or so.

Go on.


We're not talking about deadlines for committee assignments. A unanimity rule would usurp the founding principles of the country at the most basic level. No branch or agency of government is permitted to use its own procedural rulemaking authority to completely rewrite its role under the Constitution.
 
2012-11-26 01:17:25 PM  

LittleSmitty: Bad idea. Sure it sounds good to the party in power. But that party won't stay in power and they will sure wish they had that ability when they are not in power.

The problem with the fillibuster is it is abused too often for obstructionary purposes.

OK, enough Devils advocate. It should probably go. Unless someone actually stands there and does a speaking marathon as it was originally used. None of this declaring a fillibuster. If you want a fillibuster, you stand your ass there and talk until everybody screams ENOUGH! I'm OK with that.


I'm not sure I understand this. People all seem to agree though that procedural filibuster = bad, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington filibuster = good.

For the record... it goes:
Bill put up for a vote.
Senator X declares a filibuster
61 Senator majority required to reach "Cloture" which opens the bill back up for debate.

That's how it's used today.

Making somebody talk implies a *completely different procedure* is being used than is actually being used. So Senator X now talks for 15 hours and sits down and the bill goes back to the floor? Why would anybody DO that? The only reason for something like that to exist is to guarantee that enough time be allotted to make the case against a bill's passage. You should be allowed to request indefinite speaking time, lest you be forced to yield the floor. That's obvious. But "making them talk" (I'd love to see how that gets spelled out in the procedures, btw) wouldn't facilitate the same role that the filibuster has today.

It WOULD be hilarious though.
 
2012-11-26 01:18:38 PM  

Galloping Galoshes: imontheinternet: It means that when specific exceptions are given to the regular rule, one should interpret those examples as being an exhaustive list. The Constitution provides such a list of bills that require a supermajority, and everything else was placed under majority rule. If the House or Senate sought to usurp the Constitution by replacing majority rule with unanimity, the Supreme Court would strike it down, even under an extreme original intent or textualist view.

One other flaw: Senate rules require a supermajority for internal discussion of a measure, NOT for final passage. This is an important point, and one that assuredly SCOTUS would avail itself. The Constitution says that each house may determine the rules of their proceedings. Accepting your point, either the constitution contains a potential contradiction, or a Senate rule calling for a supermajority to permit debate is not the same as a bill calling for a supermajority. The two things you are trying to compare are not equal.


Actually, I just realized I was arguing a different point than the one you were making. You were speaking to the idea of a rule requiring passage of a bill be unanimous, and I was still speaking to the idea that the filibuster rule is unconstitutional.
 
2012-11-26 01:19:15 PM  

imontheinternet: Galloping Galoshes: imontheinternet: the Supreme Court would strike it down, even under an extreme original intent or textualist view.

Please show me an example of the Supreme Court's willingness to opine on the operating rules of either the House or Senate, within the last 100 years or so.

Go on.

We're not talking about deadlines for committee assignments. A unanimity rule would usurp the founding principles of the country at the most basic level. No branch or agency of government is permitted to use its own procedural rulemaking authority to completely rewrite its role under the Constitution.


I realized I was speaking to a different point. I concede the point.
 
2012-11-26 01:20:33 PM  

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: DarnoKonrad: You can't be serious. What's the last "extreme" thing the DNC has proposed?

Feeding poor people.


"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor, they call me a communist." -Hélder Câmara

// for a bit of ironic fun, he was a Roman Catholic priest
// so it's assumed he added "unless they're gay or have had an abortion. Fark those heathen sinners with a Jesus-less cross"
 
2012-11-26 01:21:34 PM  

Chummer45: the filibuster - which is found nowhere in the constitution


Found it.

Article 1, Section 5: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings"
 
2012-11-26 01:26:27 PM  

JFC: Reforming the filibuster doesn't come up in the Whitehouse petition site search.
Someone ought to make one.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/ (pops out)


Why would we petition the executive branch to enact rule reform in the legislature?
 
2012-11-26 01:26:34 PM  

russlar: The filibuster doesn't need to go, Senators need to grow balls and actually call the minorities bluff every once in a while. In the last session of Congress, there was only one filibuster. One. Carried out by that ultra-Conservative n0bama fanatic Bernie Sanders. The right only ever threatened a filibuster, but never actually did one.

Now, if you want to get rid of anonymous holds on nominees, be my guest.


Again, they DO NOT HAVE TO "actually do one".

When a senator "filibusters", or requests permission to filibuster, a vote for cloture is *required* to continue debate. There is no bluff to be called. It is their procedure. That's it.

I mean, maybe we should call it something else to avoid confusion?

"Supermajority Interest Checkpoint"?

Senator A: I invoke a supermajority interest checkpoint.
Senate Majority Leader: God damnit. Fine. Vote to establish adequate interest in the proposed bill has been invoked. Let's vote and get this shiat over with.
Senate: 48 senators agree. 52 senators disagree.
Senate Majority Leader: Well fark. That bill is tabled until adequate interest can be confirmed. Everyone go home.

Americans: ... But... that was a bill to fund schools with this pile of magic reproducing money we found in Barack's washing machine... Y U NO Liek free monay?
 
2012-11-26 01:28:50 PM  

Mugato: Filibusterering senators should be beaten to death.

If you ever want an excuse to shoot out your TV Elvis style just watch C-SPAN for 5 minutes.


The only filibuster I've seen in this record era of filibusters was Bernie Sanders, and it was actually a good speech. Well, the 20 minutes or so I watched. I can certainly handle 5 minutes of that man any day.
 
2012-11-26 01:33:15 PM  
I would like to see some idiot stand up there for a couple of days and explain why he is blocking progress as well, but I do think there is one good aspect of the procedural filibuster. In a "traditional" filibuster, no other business can take place until it is over. At least the modern version allows Congress to move on to something they can act on. This idea falls apart, however, when the minority filibusters everything on the agenda.
 
2012-11-26 01:39:22 PM  
Never happen. Too many vested interests on 'both' sides.
 
2012-11-26 01:49:07 PM  
Part of me wants to believe that McCain has been making his threats to force the Dems to eliminate the Filibuster so Congress can get back to some semblance of normalcy.
 
2012-11-26 01:52:14 PM  

JFC: Reforming the filibuster doesn't come up in the Whitehouse petition site search.
Someone ought to make one.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/ (pops out)


How would the white house reform the filibuster?
 
2012-11-26 01:54:20 PM  
someday i hope a senator snaps and just filibusters and puts holds on EVERYTHING... then see reform happen...
 
2012-11-26 02:06:15 PM  

TofuTheAlmighty: lilbjorn: The best thing that could be done right now is to make Senators who threaten to filibuster actually do it. That would cut out 95% of that bullshiat right away.
...
As revised in 1975, Senate Rule 22 seemed to be an improvement: it required 60 senators, not 67, to stop floor debate. But there also came a significant change in de facto Senate practice: to maintain a filibuster, senators no longer had to keep talking. Nowadays, they don't even have to start; they just say they will, and that's enough. Senators need not be on the floor at all. They can be at home watching Jimmy Stewart on cable. Senate Rule 22 now exists to cut off what are ghost filibusters, disembodied debates.


That's some rule, that Rule 22.
 
2012-11-26 02:06:45 PM  
img2-3.timeinc.net

I'm in favor of a Mr. Smith style filibuster.

It should exist, but it should be hard. It should take hard work to derail the will of the majority. Right now you can just wave your hand and say the magic word and the senate shuts down. Why would you ever compromise?
 
2012-11-26 02:09:01 PM  
Filibuster reform is going to happen. It won't be eliminated, but it will be diminished. I wrote Senator McCaskill to urge her to vote for filibuster reform. Here is the reply her office sent:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the Senate filibuster and efforts to reform the Senate rules. I appreciate hearing from you, and I welcome the opportunity to respond.

The United States Senate, known as the world's greatest deliberative body, allows for each of its 100 members to debate legislation, treaties, nominees, and other pending business for a virtually unlimited amount of time. Unlike the House of Representatives, Senate Rules grant ample flexibility to individual members and extend significant influence to the minority party. The Senate filibuster, the parliamentary procedure where an individual Senator employs his or her own privilege to unlimited debate, can be used by Senators of both parties to delay consideration of official business.

The filibuster has a long history in the U.S. Senate. In 1917, recognizing the deadlock prompted by President Wilson's call to enter World War I, the Senate adopted Rule 22, which allows the Senate to end debate and effectively cut off a filibuster with a supermajority "cloture" vote. Today, this rule requires 60 favorable votes to limit debate.

While I am sometimes disappointed that the Senate cannot proceed more decisively on legislation that I support, I recognize the importance of the filibuster to the Senate as a deliberative institution as well as the right of the minority party, or individual members of either party, to use this tool to express objections to legislation. The Senate was intended to be a forum of thoughtful and thorough debate. In fact, the filibuster, as originally conceived, was intended as a mechanism to allow members to fully express their concerns on the Senate floor, in the full view of the people they represent.

Unfortunately, over the past 4 years, the current Senate minority has badly exploited this debate privilege. Since I joined the Senate in 2007, there have been over 350 filibusters--more than any other previous period in Senate history -- and virtually none have been accompanied by actual full debate on the Senate floor. Instead the privilege has been exercised silently and often secretly, stopping the legislative process but offering the American people no explanation nor the Senate body any chance for real debate.

As a result of the unprecedented increase in the number of Senate filibusters several Senators have proposed reforming the rules to make the filibuster process more transparent and to restore full debate in the Senate. Senate Resolution 10 (S. Res. 10), introduced by Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico, would, if enacted, require continuous debate on any matter that fails to receive 60 favorable votes. In sum, this requirement would enable Senators to filibuster by continuously speaking on the Senate floor, as was once the Senate's tradition. Once Senators carrying out a filibuster fail to continue to speak, the filibuster would end and the item being debated would be subject to a majority vote. Importantly, S. Res. 10 would not eliminate the filibuster or the 60-vote "cloture" threshold for ending debate (in other words, if filibustering Senators continue to hold the floor and speak against a measure, their debate could only be ended with 60 votes). Therefore, at its core, S. Res. 10 requires Senators to state their objections to pending business in full view of the American people and provides a path to a majority vote on pending legislation when those who object to it refuse to come forth and debate it.

I voted in favor of S. Res. 10 because I believe it would increase transparency and accountability in the Senate, however, it only received 44 votes, falling 23 votes short of the 67 required to change the Rules of the Senate. It is important to note that the sponsors of this legislation did not seek to pass their resolution using what has often been referred to as the "constitutional" or "nuclear" option, which would have lowered the required vote threshold to a simple majority, or 50 votes, for passage.

Though the resolution did not pass, I am pleased that the leaders of both parties in the Senate, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada and Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, subsequently arrived at an informal bipartisan agreement to reduce the frequency of filibusters. I believe this is a good first step towards acheiving a more cooperative and productive legislative body. I applaud the two leaders for their efforts.

In addition to the filibuster reforms proposed in January, 2011, the Senate also considered and adopted Senate Resolution 28 (S. Res. 28), which permanently eliminates secret holds, the process where senators anonymously block legislation and nominations from consideration by the full Senate. I have lead efforts in the Senate to do away with secret holds and was proud to co-sponsor and support S. Res. 28 along with my colleagues, Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon and Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa. This new rule will bring transparency to Senate process by requiring each Senator to disclose their objection to a bill or nomination in the congressional record. I am also pleased that S. Res. 28 passed with overwhelming bipartisan support by a vote of 92-4.

Again, thank you for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance to you on this or any other issue.
 
2012-11-26 02:14:28 PM  
Simple fix: Allow actual filibusters (i.e. using your time to read the phone book or something so that everyone sees you making a stand and nothing can move forward until you shut up), but forbid procedural filibusters (just saying "I'm filibustering", then going out for coffee, and no one is allowed to proceed until you rescind your claim).

If that's too extreme, do not allow anonymous filibusters. Make a filibuster a full, official technique in the record with a name attached to it. Ban members from having more than one active filibuster "in play" at a time.

Both of these fix the problem of arbitrary obstrucitonism without depriving the minority party of the ability to stand against things it really, strenuously objects to.
 
2012-11-26 02:28:34 PM  

GAT_00: You disparage the Republicans' view that 51 votes should be enough for judicial confirmation. Yet the 51-vote rule is a consistent Senate tradition. By calling for an end to filibusters, the Senate is simply contemplating restoring its traditions by traditional methods you disparage as "nuclear," even though they were once endorsed by such leading Democrats as Senators Edward M. Kennedy, Charles E. Schumer and Robert C. Byrd.


yes
both sides did it, so it is bad
so let's get rid of it ...
or at least make them EARN IT

the house does the same thing with not letting bills come to the house for a vote.
where they KNOW the bill will pass, or they will look BAD if they vote against it ....
LOL

time to change the rules about how the rules get made in these two houses.
no more secret holds
no more preventing the bill from leaving committee
 
2012-11-26 02:28:40 PM  

Mugato: RminusQ: Mugato: Filibusterering senators should be beaten to death.

If you ever want an excuse to shoot out your TV Elvis style just watch C-SPAN for 5 minutes.

Congressmen should be required to have their debates in the form of rap battles. MC Biden lays down the beat.

Throw in breakdancing.


Political Dance 260! Tag your man! Tag your man!

/God I miss that show.
 
2012-11-26 02:38:33 PM  

Galloping Galoshes: That doesn't work. The minority party could just flood the inbox with a bunch of post office renamings.


Only count bills that make it out of committee.
 
2012-11-26 02:39:47 PM  

mtx1234: TofuTheAlmighty: lilbjorn: The best thing that could be done right now is to make Senators who threaten to filibuster actually do it. That would cut out 95% of that bullshiat right away.
...
As revised in 1975, Senate Rule 22 seemed to be an improvement: it required 60 senators, not 67, to stop floor debate. But there also came a significant change in de facto Senate practice: to maintain a filibuster, senators no longer had to keep talking. Nowadays, they don't even have to start; they just say they will, and that's enough. Senators need not be on the floor at all. They can be at home watching Jimmy Stewart on cable. Senate Rule 22 now exists to cut off what are ghost filibusters, disembodied debates.

That's some rule, that Rule 22.


It's the best there is.
 
2012-11-26 02:40:20 PM  
They can either reform it or get rid of it as far as I'm concerned. It wasn't intended by the founders and while there is a case for it, the case against it is much stronger. Our government already has enough checks and balances to prevent work from getting done as it is, we really didn't need to invent more, especially with the modern, easy version of the filibuster.
 
2012-11-26 02:40:58 PM  

Mugato: Nuclear Monk: So put the spot light on the guy doing it and the issue he's railing against. If he's up there long enough, CNN, FOX, and MSNBC will catch wind and start airing it and the public will judge him, for better or worse.

Except the public doesn't watch, understand or care about any of that.


I watched when Sanders did it. If it were my Senator I'd probably hear about it. In the current scheme of things I definitely don't hear about my rep's behavior.
 
2012-11-26 02:41:00 PM  

dwrash: Personally, I think EVERYTHING should take a 2/3rd majority to pass.


California did that with budget and tax matters. The result was that tax bills never got passed, the budget was always incredibly late, and ridiculous deals would get cut to get the last couple of holdouts to vote for something.

One third of the Senate holding anything up means the representatives of, oh, about 6% of the population could keep something from happening. No thanks.
 
2012-11-26 02:43:21 PM  

imontheinternet: Galloping Galoshes: If the Senate passed a rule that every vote had to be unanimous, that would probably be constitutional.

There's a term in interpreting the law called "expressio unius." It means that when specific exceptions are given to the regular rule, one should interpret those examples as being an exhaustive list. The Constitution provides such a list of bills that require a supermajority, and everything else was placed under majority rule. If the House or Senate sought to usurp the Constitution by replacing majority rule with unanimity, the Supreme Court would strike it down, even under an extreme original intent or textualist view.


The problem with this as an argument is that majority voting for the Article I branch of government is not within the text of the constitution. Thus there is no normal against which to base an expressio unius style argument. Given that the Constitution actually states that congress can draft its own rules, and that at the time of the framers the parliament had multiple rules requiring more or less than a majority for certain votes there is a colorable argument that all the super majority clauses of the constitution require is that congress cannot change the voting rules on these specific types of votes. All else is fair game.

All i am saying is that citing cannons of stat. interp. are not 100% winners here, since alas, the constitution is not helping.
 
2012-11-26 02:55:32 PM  

If you care about Senate rules and procedure, Sens. Reid and McConnell are currently debating rules changes on the Senate floor.

- Adam Jentleson (@AJentleson) November 26, 2012
 
2012-11-26 03:09:46 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: If you care about Senate rules and procedure, Sens. Reid and McConnell are currently debating rules changes on the Senate floor.- Adam Jentleson (@AJentleson) November 26, 2012


I am sure this will be as useful as Dick Butkis and Bob Uecker arguing "Tastes Great" and "Less Filling".
 
2012-11-26 03:36:25 PM  

TheOther: Never happen. Too many vested interests on 'both' sides.


What's the vested interest on the Majority side, exactly?
 
2012-11-26 03:42:42 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: TheOther: Never happen. Too many vested interests on 'both' sides.

What's the vested interest on the Majority side, exactly?


The worry that they won't always be in the majority.
 
2012-11-26 03:49:47 PM  

Geotpf: LittleSmitty: Bad idea. Sure it sounds good to the party in power. But that party won't stay in power and they will sure wish they had that ability when they are not in power.

The problem with the fillibuster is it is abused too often for obstructionary purposes.

OK, enough Devils advocate. It should probably go. Unless someone actually stands there and does a speaking marathon as it was originally used. None of this declaring a fillibuster. If you want a fillibuster, you stand your ass there and talk until everybody screams ENOUGH! I'm OK with that.

You can limit it without completely eliminating it. That's why people are referring to fillibuster reform, not elimination.

Oh, and the article has an error in it-the fillibuster can be changed by a simple majority at the start of a session of Congress (but not mid-session).

As for the Democrats not staying in power permanently-I think they will. Barring a major scandal or extreme policy changes on the Republican side, the Democrats will have a majority in the Senate that probably will grow in size over the years. Demographics alone guarantee this.


Yeah....remember how that whole permanent majority thing worked out for republicans?
 
2012-11-26 04:09:05 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Never happen. Remember you're only one election away from being the minority party you dont want to take away the only means of stopping bad legislation.


This is the now-classic and really stupid argument against reforming or eliminating the filibuster. Fun fact: the next Senate can do what they want to with the Senate rules, regardless. So, reform at will. The next guys probably will too.
 
2012-11-26 04:11:29 PM  

lilbjorn: The filibuster can be eliminated by the majority party

Only if that party has a super-majority.


This is wrong too. 50 plus your Biden would be plenty.
 
2012-11-26 04:15:08 PM  

Galloping Galoshes: Serious Black: Also, we should presume consent is given to executive nominees if there is no up-or-down vote on their nomination within 90 days.

Probably unconstitutional. The Senate's "advice and consent" is required.


Probably, not overtly voting "No" could be construed as "consent." You only have to decide that the default condition absent an actual vote is consent, not rejection.
 
2012-11-26 05:21:36 PM  
 
2012-11-26 05:48:08 PM  
And with this in mind, the only logical conclusion from the first two years of Obama's first administration is that Democrats didn't actually want a public option; that many of them are secretly conservative and only want to put on a show of advancing a true liberal agenda, while using "Sorry! Filibuster!" as an excuse.
 
2012-11-26 06:19:10 PM  
They should do it just to show what a bunch of pussies the Republicans are for not doing it when they had a chance. Too bad the Democrats are a bunch of parasitic lowlife scum that needs to be purged from the country because I like the cut of their jib. Well, compared to the Republican jib, anyway.
 
2012-11-26 06:21:06 PM  

Tommy Moo: And with this in mind, the only logical conclusion from the first two years of Obama's first administration is that Democrats didn't actually want a public option; that many of them are secretly conservative


"Blue Dog Democrat" mean anything to you?

Also, there was only 2 months between when Franken was finally confirmed, and Ted Kennedy died.
 
2012-11-26 06:43:23 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Never happen. Remember you're only one election away from being the minority party you dont want to take away the only means of stopping bad legislation.

Same theory as the line item veto, great when our party is in power but can we take it away when we are out of power?


I'm against the line item veto and the filibuster. No one has ever used the filibuster like the Republicans have in the past few years, but however it is used it is stupid.
 
2012-11-26 07:06:46 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: They should do it just to show what a bunch of pussies the Republicans are for not doing it when they had a chance. Too bad the Democrats are a bunch of parasitic lowlife scum that needs to be purged from the country because I like the cut of their jib. Well, compared to the Republican jib, anyway.


0/10. You sound tired, chimp.
 
2012-11-26 08:27:01 PM  
I'm all for keeping the filibuster rules as currently written...with one caveat. A Senator who filibusters, even on a procedural vote, must immediately resign his or her seat leaving a vacancy that is not filled until the next election as soon as the filibuster ends.

A Congressperson should be fully capable to block a particular piece of legislation if they feel strongly enough about it to give up their seat.
 
2012-11-26 09:13:37 PM  

that bosnian sniper: I'm all for keeping the filibuster rules as currently written...with one caveat. A Senator who filibusters, even on a procedural vote, must immediately resign his or her seat leaving a vacancy that is not filled until the next election as soon as the filibuster ends.

A Congressperson should be fully capable to block a particular piece of legislation if they feel strongly enough about it to give up their seat.


Then you might as well shut the government down after every election until the new senators are seated because nothing would get done in the "lame duck" sessions.
 
2012-11-26 09:14:03 PM  

Tommy Moo: And with this in mind, the only logical conclusion from the first two years of Obama's first administration is that Democrats didn't actually want a public option; that many of them are secretly conservative and only want to put on a show of advancing a true liberal agenda, while using "Sorry! Filibuster!" as an excuse.


Yes, exactly. It was a very telling period.
 
Displayed 50 of 159 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report