Results 1 to 15 of 21

Thread: Get rid of the filibuster

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    10-23-01
    Posts
    17,114

    Get rid of the filibuster

    At least in its present form.

    The ability to filibuster was a mistake from Aaron Burr's tenure as VP. The ability to close debate by a simple majority was known as moving the previous question. The Senate got rid of it in 1806 because no one had thought to use the ability for unlimited debate to obstruct business. That is all it is - a means of obstruction. Nothing more. I thought differently before watching it used by Republicans in the Obama Administration. I don't see any use for it anymore.

    If it is kept, it should be kept in its original form - you can obstruct for as long as you can stay on your feet talking. The record for that was held by Strom Thurmond, who spoke for just over 24 hours. That's fine by me. What they do now is just indicate that object and they don't actually have to hold the floor to obstruct. Too easy. Far too easy. And a recalcitrant minority can use it to keep anything from happening. It is how we ended up using the budget reconciliation process to actually pass a budget instead of regular order.

    Get rid of it.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    04-29-17
    Posts
    7,549
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
    At least in its present form.

    The ability to filibuster was a mistake from Aaron Burr's tenure as VP. The ability to close debate by a simple majority was known as moving the previous question. The Senate got rid of it in 1806 because no one had thought to use the ability for unlimited debate to obstruct business. That is all it is - a means of obstruction. Nothing more. I thought differently before watching it used by Republicans in the Obama Administration. I don't see any use for it anymore.

    If it is kept, it should be kept in its original form - you can obstruct for as long as you can stay on your feet talking. The record for that was held by Strom Thurmond, who spoke for just over 24 hours. That's fine by me. What they do now is just indicate that object and they don't actually have to hold the floor to obstruct. Too easy. Far too easy. And a recalcitrant minority can use it to keep anything from happening. It is how we ended up using the budget reconciliation process to actually pass a budget instead of regular order.

    Get rid of it.
    Absolutely and while we're at it let's go ahead and get rid of the Electoral College also. The Democrats have prevailed at both the presidential level and the Congressional level they should be able to rule without any interference from the Republicans whatsoever.
    OPINION....a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    10-23-01
    Posts
    17,114
    Getting rid of the Electoral College would take an Amendment to the Constitution. Getting rid of the filibuster is just a rules change. What COULD happen is proportional voting, instead of winner take all in the Electoral College. That way, we wouldn't have to watch the person who lost the popular vote become President yet again.

    As the Republicans showed, they were quite willing to ram a Supreme Court appointment through the Senate in record time no matter how much the Democrats cried, so power politics is nothing new to them. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    04-29-17
    Posts
    7,549
    I'm more than familiar with the Constitutional process. If there's ever a time to push a constitutional amendment through the time is now. It was mentioned countless times throughout the entire Democratic campaign. If that occurs then New York and California would more than likely be able to elect each president from now on giving the Democrats a hold on politics in the United States for the foreseeable future similar to what ending the filibuster would do to the Republicans in the current Congress and executive branch.
    OPINION....a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    10-23-01
    Posts
    17,114
    I know you are familiar with the Constitutional process. I'm setting up a comparison, not trying to teach you anything. I'm making an argument, not trying to educate. Try to give me the benefit of the doubt, please?

    I doubt any Amendment to the Constitution has any chance of getting the required approvals. We are just too evenly divided.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    04-29-17
    Posts
    7,549
    Okay.
    OPINION....a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    10-23-01
    Posts
    17,114
    Of course, with a filibuster, everyone's voice in the whole country is silenced except for the person doing the filibuster.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    04-23-02
    Location
    SW Colorado
    Posts
    4,959
    I would think you of all people would revere the fillibuster. Hehehe....
    "Back after 5 years. I thought you had died.

    don"


    Splitting my time between the montane and the mesas

    The woods are lovely, dark and deep.
    But I have promises to keep,
    And miles to go before I sleep,
    And miles to go before I sleep.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    04-29-17
    Posts
    7,549
    Quote Originally Posted by CactusCurt View Post
    I would think you of all people would revere the fillibuster. Hehehe....
    Best one of the new year so far. LMAO
    OPINION....a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    10-23-01
    Posts
    17,114
    Long as I'm the one doing the talking!!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •