Democrats attempt to limit filibuster


By iwog   Follow   Fri, 30 Nov 2012, 7:49pm   1,484 views   28 comments
In Lafayette CA 94549   Watch (0)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (3)  

...and Republicans threaten to kill the hostage. (again)

Intellectuals and moderates from both sides of the political spectrum have been calling for an end to the Senate filibuster. It has long ceased to function as intended and now is simply a way to block any action by the opposing party indefinitely for any reason or for no reason at all. It is tyranny of the minority against the democratic process, it has no legitimacy except as a senate rule having no status under the constitution or federal law, and it was NOT part of the original federal congress having been created in 1806 and not used until 1841. The modern use of the filibuster doesn't even require an actual filibuster and is simply a decision by the Senate minority leader to hold legislation hostage.

Anyone can guess what comes next. Boehner announces he must get his way or he will kill the hostage. Unlike simply changing a Senate rule, one that has been changed several times in our history, Boehner's threat to ignore any legislation coming from the Senate is probably unconstitutional.

Serious question: If you're a Republican, when did you decide you hated the American government so much? I'm not kidding or posturing. Regardless of what you think about this issue, why the fuck do you keep voting for a representative that attempts at every turn to destroy our government? To destroy its basic function? To slash and burn and throw a temper tantrum any time someone disagrees with you?

Boehner joins filibuster fight against Democrats
http://news.yahoo.com/boehner-joins-filibuster-fight-against-democrats-035715231--politics.html

WASHINGTON (AP) — House Speaker John Boehner joined fellow Republicans in the Senate on Thursday in their battle to stop Democrats controlling that chamber from curbing filibusters, threatening to ignore bills the Senate sends him if Democrats have abused GOP senators' rights to slow consideration of legislation.

The threat by Boehner, R-Ohio, represents an unusual escalation across the Capitol building of a bitter partisan fight that has been brewing in the Senate for weeks. It also underscores a Republican effort to retain as much power as they can next year, when Democrats will control the White House and Senate and Republicans will lead only the House.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has said that on the first day of the new Congress in January, he may take the unusual step of using a simple majority vote to limit filibusters.

Usually it takes a two-thirds vote to change Senate rules. A simple majority would mean Democrats could change the filibuster rules without GOP support, and the threat has infuriated Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and other Republicans. Democrats will control the new Senate 55-45, including one Democratic-leaning independent.

Boehner said that Reid's threat "is clearly designed to marginalize Senate Republicans and their constituents while greasing the skids for controversial, partisan measures."

He added, "Any bill that reaches a Republican-led House based on Senate Democrats' heavy-handed power play would be dead on arrival."

Though the rules change would not occur until next year, Boehner suggested that it might poison the atmosphere even sooner, "at a time when cooperation on Capitol Hill is critical."

Viewing Comments 1-28 of 28     Last »     See most liked comments

  1. Bellingham Bill


    Follow
    Befriend
    75 threads
    3,155 comments
    Bellingham, WA

    1   8:09pm Fri 30 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)  

    Boehner as chief of the House is within his rights in our bicameral system to freeze out the Senate.

    It's up for the people to decide who's right on this, in 2014.

    Until then, "Let The Games Begin!"

  2. bdrasin


    Follow
    Befriend
    7 threads
    561 comments
    Alameda, CA

    2   8:48pm Fri 30 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)  

    Bellingham Bill says

    Boehner as chief of the House is within his rights in our bicameral system to freeze out the Senate.

    It's up for the people to decide who's right on this, in 2014.

    Until then, "Let The Games Begin!"

    Not really, the republicans have gerrymandered the house so severely that it is close to impossible for them to lose their majority. They have largely removed the ability of the people to hold them accountable.

  3. HEY YOU


    Follow
    Befriend (3)
    863 threads
    2,164 comments

    3   9:19pm Fri 30 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    Boehner is not a Senator. He has no say in the Senate.

    Reid needs to say: Any bill that reaches a Democratic- led Senate based on House Republicans heavy-handed power play would be dead on arrival in the Senate

  4. Bellingham Bill


    Follow
    Befriend
    75 threads
    3,155 comments
    Bellingham, WA

    4   9:23pm Fri 30 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    bdrasin says

    They have largely removed the ability of the people to hold them accountable.

    Dems got 58M votes in 2012 but 65M in 2008.

    The People will Speak.

    (or just get run over by "the 1%", that's also possible)

  5. Bellingham Bill


    Follow
    Befriend
    75 threads
    3,155 comments
    Bellingham, WA

    5   9:24pm Fri 30 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike (1)  

    HEY YOU says

    Boehner is not a Senator. He has no say in the Senate.

    If the Republicans want a Cold War in DC, bring it on. This will terminate their party, if the electorate has any sense.

    (he says checking travelocity again)

  6. bdrasin


    Follow
    Befriend
    7 threads
    561 comments
    Alameda, CA

    6   11:12pm Fri 30 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    Bellingham Bill says

    bdrasin says

    They have largely removed the ability of the people to hold them accountable.

    Dems got 58M votes in 2012 but 65M in 2008.

    The People will Speak.

    (or just get run over by "the 1%", that's also possible)

    I'm not sure you are taking into account just how badly the deck has been stacked. For example, in Ohio the Democrats won 52% of the congressional vote overall and got only 4 of 16 representatives! The Republicans were so effective in packing the Democratic voters into those four districts that there were only 2 other districts that were within 10%, and only 6 other districts that were within 20%! That's right - if the Democrats did 10% better across the board their delegation would be a whopping 6 of 16 representatives, and it would take darn near 20% better to get a majority.

    Same story in PA; Republicans won 13 of 19 despite losing the popular vote, and only ONE of the Republicans won by less than 10%. Same story in Michigan, in North Carolina, in Virginia, in EVERY state where the Republicans got to write the rules in 2010. Of course its possible that things could get outrageous enough that the Republicans could lose the house, but it would have to be really drastic; a 2008-level popular vote whupping might well not be enough.

  7. CaptainShuddup


    Follow
    Befriend (1)
    842 threads
    10,904 comments

    7   8:59am Sat 1 Dec 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)  

    iwog says

    Usually it takes a two-thirds vote to change Senate rules. A simple majority would mean Democrats could change the filibuster rules without GOP support, and the threat has infuriated Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and other Republicans.

    Sure sounds like a good Idea now, until the second term of President Marco Rubio. You Libs will be pissing and moaning about how the Republicans are abusing their power. And blaming them for this reversal of rule.

    Democrats will control the new Senate 55-45, including one Democratic-leaning independent.

    Typical Democrats always either unilaterally cooping people or disenfranchising them.

    iwog says

    Boehner said that Reid's threat "is clearly designed to marginalize Senate Republicans and their constituents while greasing the skids for controversial, partisan measures."

    Welcome to the party John.

  8. lostand confused


    Follow
    Befriend (9)
    476 threads
    2,984 comments

    8   9:09am Sat 1 Dec 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    CaptainShuddup says

    until the second term of President Marco Rubio. Y

    The guy who charged his minivan repairs and groceries to the republican party credit card???

    Any guy who did what Rubio did in a corporation will be fired or even have criminal charges filed against them.

  9. iwog


    Follow
    Befriend (46)
    375 threads
    19,876 comments
    47 male
    Lafayette, CA
    Premium

    9   11:14am Sat 1 Dec 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    CaptainShuddup says

    Sure sounds like a good Idea now, until the second term of President Marco Rubio. You Libs will be pissing and moaning about how the Republicans are abusing their power. And blaming them for this reversal of rule.

    Bullshit. Why do you always assume that I'm going to be as intellectually corrupt as you are? I think the filibuster rule as currently implemented is a horrible thing for the government and for the country. It allows both Republicans and Democrats legitimate and illegitimate cover for their failures, and has pretty much eliminated the Senate as a functioning legislature. I supported the elimination of this toxic rule back when Bush was president and Republicans had both houses and I want it gone now as well.

    In this case, all that is being proposed is that the minority ACTUALLY filibusters on the Senate floor and doesn't get the liberty of simply announcing a bill is dead until further notice. It returns Senate rules to what they have been for most of our history.

    CaptainShuddup says

    Typical Democrats always either unilaterally cooping people or disenfranchising them.

    Right.....disenfranchising them. What's the franchise? State it! The filibuster is a Senate rule. It is not a constitutional right, it is not a law, it is an aspect of Senate decorum that can be changed as easily as a seating arrangement or the color of the carpets.

    You're a fucking liar when you say removing the ability of the minority to hold bills hostage is disenfranchisement. When are you going to grow up?"

  10. CaptainShuddup


    Follow
    Befriend (1)
    842 threads
    10,904 comments

    10   8:10am Mon 3 Dec 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    iwog says

    Right.....disenfranchising them. What's the franchise? State it! T

    Calling the one independent the Senate Democrat "Leaning".
    I guess if he didn't at least play along with that sentiment, he would be labeled a Teabagger racist. Which he surely will be the first time he sides with the GOP.

  11. iwog


    Follow
    Befriend (46)
    375 threads
    19,876 comments
    47 male
    Lafayette, CA
    Premium

    11   9:02am Mon 3 Dec 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    CaptainShuddup says

    iwog says

    Right.....disenfranchising them. What's the franchise? State it! T

    Calling the one independent the Senate Democrat "Leaning".

    I guess if he didn't at least play along with that sentiment, he would be labeled a Teabagger racist. Which he surely will be the first time he sides with the GOP.

    Why would you quote my question and then not answer it?

    Do you even know what disenfranchising means?

  12. bdrasin


    Follow
    Befriend
    7 threads
    561 comments
    Alameda, CA

    12   9:03am Mon 3 Dec 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    iwog says

    I supported the elimination of this toxic rule back when Bush was president and Republicans had both houses and I want it gone now as well.

    It's kind of beside the point anyway. The instant the republicans get a Senate majority they will deep-six the filibuster. Does anyone here seriously think that if the Republicans had won the White House and Senate (*HUGE SIGH OF RELIEF*) they wouldn't have done away with it right away without even discussing it?

  13. CaptainShuddup


    Follow
    Befriend (1)
    842 threads
    10,904 comments

    13   9:06am Mon 3 Dec 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    iwog says

    CaptainShuddup says

    iwog says

    Right.....disenfranchising them. What's the franchise? State it! T

    Calling the one independent the Senate Democrat "Leaning".

    I guess if he didn't at least play along with that sentiment, he would be labeled a Teabagger racist. Which he surely will be the first time he sides with the GOP.

    Why would you quote my question and then not answer it?

    Iwog, sometimes, if you try, you just might find, you get what you need.

  14. iwog


    Follow
    Befriend (46)
    375 threads
    19,876 comments
    47 male
    Lafayette, CA
    Premium

    14   11:33am Mon 3 Dec 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    CaptainShuddup says

    Iwog, sometimes, if you try, you just might find, you get what you need.

    So I was right the first time. You don't even understand the terms you are using.

    How about this. Changing the filibuster rule back to what it was 75 years ago doesn't disenfranchise anyone and your bitching about it proves AGAIN that you're lying about being independent and will carry water for the Republicans regardless of the issue.

  15. iwog


    Follow
    Befriend (46)
    375 threads
    19,876 comments
    47 male
    Lafayette, CA
    Premium

    15   1:12pm Mon 3 Dec 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Melmakian says

    using the filibuster to thwart anything the Reps put up?

    This is a lie. Democrats did no such thing. As always, it's easy to prove Shrek lives in an alternate universe.

  16. iwog


    Follow
    Befriend (46)
    375 threads
    19,876 comments
    47 male
    Lafayette, CA
    Premium

    16   1:15pm Mon 3 Dec 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    You'll notice that Shrek is arguing partisan short-sighted squabble while people on the left are making a case based on the health of the country.

    Is it good for the country to have a House run by Republicans when Democrats won the House popular vote? No of course not.

    Is it good for the country to have a minority in the Senate able to hold any bill hostage for no reason whatsoever? No of course not.

    The inverse is obvious and clear. Shrek and most Republicans don't care about the health of the nation and will gladly watch it burn for no better reason than to win the latest pissing match.

  17. iwog


    Follow
    Befriend (46)
    375 threads
    19,876 comments
    47 male
    Lafayette, CA
    Premium

    17   1:17pm Mon 3 Dec 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Melmakian says

    Ah yes, a rigged graph released by senate.gov that is under control of the Dems. Wow!

    How is it rigged? (this will never be answered)
    Why don't you show us accurate data? (this will never be answered)

    Melmakian says

    So? Those elections were not statewide yet you use the 'overall' vote to compare like that matters. Either you don't understand what 'congressional districts' are or you are being deliberately disengenous. Which is it?

    Totally ignores the point, which had nothing to do with the mechanics of the vote and everything to do with what Democracy really means.

    Melmakian says

    Because this very post reinforces that which has already been proven, as noted -- that you are going to be intellectually corrupt at the drop of a dime.

    How am I intellectually corrupt? (this again will never be answered)

    Not answering questions proves how dishonest you are.

  18. tatupu70


    Follow
    Befriend (3)
    23 threads
    8,088 comments

    18   1:32pm Mon 3 Dec 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Melmakian says

    That is what THEIR voters want them to do and most of them will be replaced by someone else if they don't

    Really? Did you ask them? Because the people that I talk to want their Congressmen to actually get things done.

  19. CaptainShuddup


    Follow
    Befriend (1)
    842 threads
    10,904 comments

    19   1:46pm Mon 3 Dec 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)  

    I just got off the phone with John Boehner, he told me to tell Iwog "NO!".

  20. Vicente


    Follow
    Befriend (8)
    260 threads
    5,721 comments
    Davis, CA

    20   2:04pm Mon 3 Dec 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    End the filibuster rule entirely. It's an anachronism that is now more harmful than helpful.

    Teabaggers can refer to the Founders, who created no such provision and thus would naturally have abhorred it.

  21. iwog


    Follow
    Befriend (46)
    375 threads
    19,876 comments
    47 male
    Lafayette, CA
    Premium

    21   3:39pm Mon 3 Dec 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    iwog says

    How is it rigged? (this will never be answered)
    Why don't you show us accurate data? (this will never be answered)

    As predicted, Shrek ran away from both of these questions because he's a coward. I'll answer any question put to me.

    Melmakian says

    Looks like intellectual dishonesty/corruption to me.

    To the insane man, everyone looks crazy except those he shares the asylum with.

  22. BobMSN


    Follow
    Befriend
    6 threads
    107 comments

    22   3:47pm Mon 3 Dec 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Ending the Senate filibuster does not make US government efficient either. We should get rid of the Congress. Let King Obama make all decisions so 98% people will be happy forever.

  23. iwog


    Follow
    Befriend (46)
    375 threads
    19,876 comments
    47 male
    Lafayette, CA
    Premium

    23   4:07pm Mon 3 Dec 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Melmakian says

    Why did you try pushing off a graph about motions to close filibusters as proof that the number of filibusters increased in the last two terms and were caused by Republicans?

    Nominated.

    Jesus Christ people, how the fuck can anyone possibly call himself a Republican? Seriously?

  24. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    1,035 threads
    12,753 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    24   4:56pm Mon 3 Dec 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Allowing the filibuster makes no sense. The so-called justification is to make sure all sides of a debater are fully heard. The filibuster does just the exact opposite. There should be a maximum time to speak for each congressman. Anything over that can be put into writing. That way people can just mark any bullshit like copying the telephone directory as such.

    In fact, there should be a rule that no matter can be considered, including vacations or pay raises for Congress, while a filibuster is going on and a vote must follow all filibusters regardless of how long they go on. That way assholes can't stop the legislative process.

    The courts should be the ones to overturn unjust legislation.

  25. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    1,035 threads
    12,753 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    25   4:58pm Mon 3 Dec 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Can anyone here give one example of when the filibuster was used for good?

  26. bdrasin


    Follow
    Befriend
    7 threads
    561 comments
    Alameda, CA

    26   6:06pm Mon 3 Dec 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Dan8267 says

    Can anyone here give one example of when the filibuster was used for good?

    Look, I'm not going to dig through all the votes but I'm sure if I looked at all 500+ times the filibuster has been used in the last 10 years I could find some times that it was used to block a law that I disagreed with (and so could you). Is that what you mean?

    I mean, its a really crude analogy, but I'm sure of the 6 million Jews who died in the Holocaust, some small number of them were horrible criminals who deserved to die. Does that prove anything?

  27. iwog


    Follow
    Befriend (46)
    375 threads
    19,876 comments
    47 male
    Lafayette, CA
    Premium

    27   6:30pm Mon 3 Dec 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    bdrasin says

    I mean, its a really crude analogy, but I'm sure of the 6 million Jews who died in the Holocaust, some small number of them were horrible criminals who deserved to die. Does that prove anything?

    This is a Senate rule of procedure, not a constitutional construct of government or even a law. If it has failed to provide a clear benefit to the country, it should be eliminated.

  28. bdrasin


    Follow
    Befriend
    7 threads
    561 comments
    Alameda, CA

    28   8:37pm Mon 3 Dec 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    iwog says

    bdrasin says

    I mean, its a really crude analogy, but I'm sure of the 6 million Jews who died in the Holocaust, some small number of them were horrible criminals who deserved to die. Does that prove anything?

    This is a Senate rule of procedure, not a constitutional construct of government or even a law. If it has failed to provide a clear benefit to the country, it should be eliminated.

    You're pushing at an open door with me.

Premium member iwog is moderator of this thread.

Email

Username

Watch comments by email
Home   Tips and Tricks   Questions or suggestions? Mail p@patrick.net   Thank you for your kind donations

Page took 250 milliseconds to create.