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.

(Eugene Register-Guard)   Is requiring a super-majority for every vote constitutional?   (registerguard.com) divider line 25
    More: Dumbass, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, supermajority, nuclear option, Hurricane Sandy, Jeff Merkley, The Register-Guard, D-Ore, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid  
•       •       •

997 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Jan 2013 at 8:46 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-01-23 08:51:22 AM  
It doesn't matter, since the judiciary will never involve itself in this question.
 
2013-01-23 08:52:07 AM  
Reid needs to stop putting it off and do it.
 
2013-01-23 08:52:22 AM  
Yes. It's the threshold for a cloture vote to end debate, not the actual vote to pass the law. Passing a law is still a majority vote.

Also, the standing filibuster idea seems like a good one, I approve.
 
2013-01-23 08:53:16 AM  
All filibusters must be talking, and must be nude.

Problem solved.
 
2013-01-23 08:55:00 AM  
What does the German Chancellor have to do with the filibuster?
 
2013-01-23 08:55:19 AM  

Jim_Callahan: Yes. It's the threshold for a cloture vote to end debate, not the actual vote to pass the law. Passing a law is still a majority vote.


One of the problems lately is they're acting like 60 votes is required to START debate. So, 40 people can prevent discussion, and have.
 
2013-01-23 08:55:27 AM  
3.bp.blogspot.comcdn.bandmix.comwww.mightyleaf.com
 
2013-01-23 08:55:57 AM  

Bungles: All filibusters must be talking, and must be nude.

Problem solved.


There went my breakfast.
 
2013-01-23 08:56:22 AM  

Bungles: All filibusters must be talking, and must be nude.

Problem solved.



Also the talk must be related to the debate at hand.
 
2013-01-23 08:56:23 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 300x301][cdn.bandmix.com image 238x240][www.mightyleaf.com image 500x500]


oops, wrong thread. Pretend you didn't see anything.
 
2013-01-23 08:56:48 AM  
Article I Section 5 says "Yes"

However the 27th Ammendment will biatchslap the House GOP's harebrained proposal to stop paying Senators if they don't pass a budget.
 
2013-01-23 09:02:24 AM  
Eh, I'm partial to Harry Reid's reversal of burden proposal, in which instead of needing 60 votes to end a filibuster, one would need 41 votes to sustain a filibuster, thus forcing filibuster teams to remain in the Senate lest the motion to extend debate fail.
 
2013-01-23 09:04:54 AM  
Yes. They just have to follow their own rules for changing the rules.
 
2013-01-23 09:06:10 AM  

Jim_Callahan: Yes. It's the threshold for a cloture vote to end debate, not the actual vote to pass the law. Passing a law is still a majority vote.

Also, the standing filibuster idea seems like a good one, I approve.


Concur.  James Carville's been saying this for ~4 years.  If you want to stop a bill from passing the Senate, the correct procedure is not to change the number of votes required.  The correct procedure is to stand up and talk for hours on end to run out the clock on the vote.  If blocking the bill is important enough to negate the majority rule of the Senate, it's important enough to do an actual standing filibuster.
 
2013-01-23 09:10:55 AM  
The suspiciously french sounding Wayne Lapierre "Absolutes do exist, it's the basis of all civilization," said LaPierre. "Without those absolutes, Democracy decays into nothing more than two wolves and one lamb voting on who to eat for lunch."

So in terms of absolutes, the lamb would have to vote to be eaten before the wolves would eat it?

Logical fallacy is false.
 
2013-01-23 09:20:12 AM  

IlGreven: Eh, I'm partial to Harry Reid's reversal of burden proposal, in which instead of needing 60 votes to end a filibuster, one would need 41 votes to sustain a filibuster, thus forcing filibuster teams to remain in the Senate lest the motion to extend debate fail.


this sounds logical. it'll never fly.
 
2013-01-23 09:30:04 AM  
Short answer yes. Long answer yeeeeeeeesssssss. Next question.
 
2013-01-23 09:42:54 AM  
How about we just follow the advice of Reid, Clinton, and Biden when it comes to the senate and its filibuster rules.
 
2013-01-23 09:55:13 AM  

Great_Milenko: The suspiciously french sounding Wayne Lapierre "Absolutes do exist, it's the basis of all civilization," said LaPierre. "Without those absolutes, Democracy decays into nothing more than two wolves and one lamb voting on who to eat for lunch."

So in terms of absolutes, the lamb would have to vote to be eaten before the wolves would eat it?

Logical fallacy is false.


You know it's not really about wolves and lambs, right?
 
2013-01-23 10:07:13 AM  
The problem here is that Mitch McConnell is an evil traitor who should be made into soup.
 
2013-01-23 01:51:51 PM  
Reid's idea is actually pretty good -- requiring the minority maintain 41 votes on the floor shifts the burden; currently, keeping a fillibuster alive simply requires two supporters from the minority, and 49 from the majority to maintain a quorum.
 
2013-01-23 03:24:45 PM  

Target Builder: Article I Section 5 says "Yes"

However the 27th Ammendment will biatchslap the House GOP's harebrained proposal to stop paying Senators if they don't pass a budget.


Not if they get back pay.
 
2013-01-23 09:44:47 PM  

IlGreven: Eh, I'm partial to Harry Reid's reversal of burden proposal, in which instead of needing 60 votes to end a filibuster, one would need 41 votes to sustain a filibuster, thus forcing filibuster teams to remain in the Senate lest the motion to extend debate fail.


It's a pity that this is Harry Reid, so we'll once again get to see him capitulate and call it compromise.

At the end of it, I expect to see it set up so that a filibuster can only be ended by unanimous consent, and that every bill will be considered automatically filibustered so that Republicans don't even have to take time off from soliciting campaign contributions to obstruct legislation.
 
2013-01-24 01:15:30 PM  
A filibuster should require not only actually standing and speaking to hold the floor, but doing so while standing in a large mound of fire ants. That would make CSPAN a lot more interesting.
 
2013-01-24 01:17:23 PM  

Bungles: Bungles: All filibusters must be talking, and must be nude.

Problem solved.


Also the talk must be related to the debate at hand.


And they have to do the helicopter dick thing the entire time. Female senators can shimmy, I guess. All while standing in fire ants.
 
Displayed 25 of 25 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report