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  
•       •       •

3797 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Nov 2012 at 11:26 AM (1 year 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 09:19:08 PM

Fail in Human Form: 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.


Kind of like business as usual?

\the senate: the world's most distinguished navel-gazing institution.
\\where ideas go to die, and senators to wait to die.
\\\mini mac keyboard forwardslashless, for your protection.
 
2012-11-26 09:31:47 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.


Meh, I offer only one fix for the filibuster: the item is about to be voted on (literally up for a vote), and THEN you have the option to filibuster ON LIVE TV and that's it. Keep talking too, because when the talking stops, the vote happens.
 
2012-11-26 10:09:19 PM

Serious Black: Filibustering a motion to proceed is ludicrous. Toss that out, but leave the full filibuster.

I like Merkley's idea too. Five senators need to be on the floor to sustain a filibuster for the first 24 hours, then ten for the next 24 hours, then twenty after that. I'd personally say change it to twenty for the next 24 hours, and all forty after that. They don't necessarily need to be talking, but there needs to be a price for holding up legislation.

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


And they should all be forced to stand... while covered in bees.
 
2012-11-26 10:19:40 PM

r1chard3: [img2-3.timeinc.net image 400x300]

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?


That's great in theory. The only problem is the Senate can't do anything else while you're doing the Mr. Smith-style filibuster. This way, you can get on with the next thing.

IMO the Democrats know they'll be the minority party at some point and will want the filibuster then. Plus, all the senators like the personal power it gives them. It ain't going anywhere.
 
2012-11-26 11:40:53 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.


I agree. The problem is, I feel that in the current atmosphere, the moment the Republicans get Senate majority, they'll do it anyway, whether or not the Dems do it first.
 
2012-11-27 04:40:02 AM

impaler: there was only 2 months between when Franken was finally confirmed, and Ted Kennedy died.


This is one of my favorite STFU lines when teabaggers run their pie holes about dems controlling congress. The fact that they don't know this, or think I don't, angers me.
 
2012-11-27 08:17:22 AM

Notabunny: Serious Black: Filibustering a motion to proceed is ludicrous. Toss that out, but leave the full filibuster.

I like Merkley's idea too. Five senators need to be on the floor to sustain a filibuster for the first 24 hours, then ten for the next 24 hours, then twenty after that. I'd personally say change it to twenty for the next 24 hours, and all forty after that. They don't necessarily need to be talking, but there needs to be a price for holding up legislation.

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

And they should all be forced to stand... while covered in bees.


www.hellotravel.com
 
2012-11-27 08:44:49 AM
They should be given just six filibusters per year. Use them wisely, like time-outs in football, 'cause when they're gone, they're gone. No more of this filibustering everydamthing that the other side proposes. Instead, the minority party would be forced to work with the majority to arrive at a compromise.
 
2012-11-27 04:51:09 PM

ricewater_stool: 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.


They are all Senators first, with R or D or I coming in a distant second.
 
Displayed 9 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 »






Report