Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

Filibusters

TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2013 4:43:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
According to this article:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...

Seems as though the Democrats are trying to centralize a little more power for the President without having every nominee being questioned.

What do you guys think? Destruction of due process for the senate? Or is this a measure for more efficiency in a deadlocked system?
Thank you for voting!
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2013 11:13:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/13/2013 4:43:01 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
According to this article:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...

Seems as though the Democrats are trying to centralize a little more power for the President without having every nominee being questioned.

What do you guys think? Destruction of due process for the senate? Or is this a measure for more efficiency in a deadlocked system?

Depends upon how the law is written and if it allows for loopholes. I agree that the current process is absolutely absurd at the moment...the opposing party is attempting to sabotage the current administration to score political points while in the process sabotaging national interests.

I don't see cabinet officials as being a significant enough of an issue to warrant the filibuster.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2013 11:39:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/13/2013 11:13:45 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/13/2013 4:43:01 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
According to this article:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...

Seems as though the Democrats are trying to centralize a little more power for the President without having every nominee being questioned.

What do you guys think? Destruction of due process for the senate? Or is this a measure for more efficiency in a deadlocked system?

Depends upon how the law is written and if it allows for loopholes. I agree that the current process is absolutely absurd at the moment...the opposing party is attempting to sabotage the current administration to score political points while in the process sabotaging national interests.

I don't see cabinet officials as being a significant enough of an issue to warrant the filibuster.

Yeah i agree with you on this completely, though i got a feeling that the republicans are gonna take this one and parade around this bill during the elections to make obama look like a tyrant.
Thank you for voting!
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2013 12:48:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/13/2013 11:39:18 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 7/13/2013 11:13:45 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/13/2013 4:43:01 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
According to this article:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...

Seems as though the Democrats are trying to centralize a little more power for the President without having every nominee being questioned.

What do you guys think? Destruction of due process for the senate? Or is this a measure for more efficiency in a deadlocked system?

Depends upon how the law is written and if it allows for loopholes. I agree that the current process is absolutely absurd at the moment...the opposing party is attempting to sabotage the current administration to score political points while in the process sabotaging national interests.

I don't see cabinet officials as being a significant enough of an issue to warrant the filibuster.

Yeah i agree with you on this completely, though i got a feeling that the republicans are gonna take this one and parade around this bill during the elections to make obama look like a tyrant.

werd =)
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2013 9:55:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/13/2013 4:43:01 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
According to this article:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...

Seems as though the Democrats are trying to centralize a little more power for the President without having every nominee being questioned.

What do you guys think? Destruction of due process for the senate? Or is this a measure for more efficiency in a deadlocked system?

Wasn't it the Democrats who taught the Republicans how to hold nominee's in limbo during GWB's term? It is fun watching the parties waffle back and forth trying to rationalize why it makes sense this time while hoping everyone forgot events 10 years ago.

This is a perversion of what makes the American system superior to any democracy. We give the minority in the Senate power to stop legislation via the filibuster and this is a very important check and balance when there is not a 60% majority to ram it though.

Washington is at a standstill because the parties no longer negotiate and are no longer willing to make concessions on their beliefs. The process is not broken, the people who lead us are broken.
rockwater
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 3:09:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/13/2013 9:55:07 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/13/2013 4:43:01 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
According to this article:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...

Seems as though the Democrats are trying to centralize a little more power for the President without having every nominee being questioned.

What do you guys think? Destruction of due process for the senate? Or is this a measure for more efficiency in a deadlocked system?

Wasn't it the Democrats who taught the Republicans how to hold nominee's in limbo during GWB's term? It is fun watching the parties waffle back and forth trying to rationalize why it makes sense this time while hoping everyone forgot events 10 years ago.

This is a perversion of what makes the American system superior to any democracy. We give the minority in the Senate power to stop legislation via the filibuster and this is a very important check and balance when there is not a 60% majority to ram it though.

Washington is at a standstill because the parties no longer negotiate and are no longer willing to make concessions on their beliefs. The process is not broken, the people who lead us are broken.

I strongly disagree that the filibuster strengthens American democracy by encouraging rational deliberation and consensus, so as to create a republic rather than mob rule. It is an unfortunate legacy of the idea of an upper house consisting of more elite, better educated members that would treat each other with decorum and give bills the thoughtful consideration they deserve. Sometimes you have to admit that the founding fathers were wrong - or that their framework simply cannot produce effective governance (or just democracy) in the modern age. The filibuster for all legislation and not just presidential administration appointees must be abolished and rules for debate established similar to those in the House. Although some people may fantasize about a Congress that passes very few laws, in a nation spanning a continent with a unified economy that will not function without federal regulation (not to mention tremendous economic and military responsibilities abroad), Congress has to pass a lot of laws every year - most importantly a budget, which Congress has not passed in a long time. We need majority rule in the Senate as just part of restoring the functionality of Congress.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 9:54:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/13/2013 4:43:01 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
According to this article:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...

Seems as though the Democrats are trying to centralize a little more power for the President without having every nominee being questioned.

What do you guys think? Destruction of due process for the senate? Or is this a measure for more efficiency in a deadlocked system?

I think the Dems are just ticked because the Republicans are doing the exact same thing they did under Republican administrations, except they are expanding it to cabinet officials and the like. It's really karma on their part for blocking Robert Bork and the slew of nominees from Bush 43.
rockwater
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 10:57:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/16/2013 9:54:46 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 7/13/2013 4:43:01 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
According to this article:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...

Seems as though the Democrats are trying to centralize a little more power for the President without having every nominee being questioned.

What do you guys think? Destruction of due process for the senate? Or is this a measure for more efficiency in a deadlocked system?

I think the Dems are just ticked because the Republicans are doing the exact same thing they did under Republican administrations, except they are expanding it to cabinet officials and the like. It's really karma on their part for blocking Robert Bork and the slew of nominees from Bush 43.

I don't care which party uses it, or even if one my cherished rights/political programs are up for a vote. The filibuster is a bad thing. Senators talk all about tradition and decorum and comity, but it really about their power, and the campaign contributions they get for being one of the supermajority votes on one bill or other. These are not the workings of an enlightened republic. I see no reason why the filibuster should exist unless someone is really willing to get up there and speak for 23 hours - which always fails in the end (even in Texas) so it is just to make a point. Let the majority rule in the Senate.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 4:49:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
From what I have heard about this, there are three things that can be filibustered: laws, judicial appointments, non-judicial appointments. The proposal is for only the latter.

I agree with this as long as any of these appointment can be terminated upon request (i.e. a new president).

I oppose eliminating the filibuster for legislation or judicial nominees.
My work here is, finally, done.
CanWeKnow
Posts: 217
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 5:48:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
o.O I know what Filibusters are... but I get the feeling I might be lacking something.

I never understood why my weird Dem friends cheered when a state anti-abortion law was successfully Filibustered.

I think it's a waste of time and just unproductive.

At the very least, can't our representatives just say "OK, look, let's just pretend I was successful in my Filibuster attempt and move on to the next topic."

We wouldn't have to waste floor time and we could focus on the real issues that people ARE willing to compromise on.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 6:17:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 5:48:40 PM, CanWeKnow wrote:
o.O I know what Filibusters are... but I get the feeling I might be lacking something.

I never understood why my weird Dem friends cheered when a state anti-abortion law was successfully Filibustered.

Because it was impressive.
13 hours of speaking while remaining on topic, which was a rule in the state, not for the feds.

I think it's a waste of time and just unproductive.

At the very least, can't our representatives just say "OK, look, let's just pretend I was successful in my Filibuster attempt and move on to the next topic."

We wouldn't have to waste floor time and we could focus on the real issues that people ARE willing to compromise on.

Actions speak louder than words, and the fact that someone believes against something enough where they refuse to give up the floor and let anyone else speak is what makes the filibuster work; nothing gets done.

"okay, okay, look, just shut the hell up and we'll drop the issue and move on to the next one". It's the only negotiation tactic left to a minority that doesn't have the ability to move things along.
My work here is, finally, done.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 8:35:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I miss when filibustering required actual filibustering. Now they usually don't have to, which means they can go to what should be the "nuclear option" on a whim. The 13 hour ACTUAL filibuster was awesome. Most filibusters these days are just "Meh, I announce I'm filibustering. see you guys next week!"
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 9:28:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 8:35:44 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
I miss when filibustering required actual filibustering. Now they usually don't have to, which means they can go to what should be the "nuclear option" on a whim. The 13 hour ACTUAL filibuster was awesome. Most filibusters these days are just "Meh, I announce I'm filibustering. see you guys next week!"

You know how to make them end quicker.
Well, since they can just read the paper or whatever, they should grab a volume of Far Side or other one-panel comics, and explain each cartoon to everyone.

The filibuster would be over in ten minutes.
My work here is, finally, done.