Filibuster Reform

[TakeYouToTasker]

If you want to filibuster...then filibuster in person at least...and don't both doing on the motion to proceed if you have a problem with a bill show it in debate it's that simple. Simply informing the majority leader you have an intent to filibuster a motion to proceed is garbage.

Why did it only just become garbage? Why is this the only parliamentary maneuver you're so concerned with? Why do you introduce harsh and prejudicial language to the conversation and attribute it to your opposition when challenged with a legitimate, albiet brief, counter point?

 

You don't want a discussion, you want a pulpit.

Edited November 27, 2012 by TakeYouToTasker

[dayman]

Filibuster: Get a handful of cosponsors for your filibuster, take the floor and speak on relevant issues to the bill. 67 votes for cloture for the first 3 days, 60 until the 7th, then 58 until the 10th, and finally 50 for cloture after 12 days. That is plenty of time to debate it all out and try to win public support and honestly with rules like that if real debate is happening cloture will be used more rarely.

 

Likewise these anonymous holds are crap..they should be public as to who put the hold on and require a cosponsor or two and a stated reason that is relevant to the issue.

 

Obviously the amendment process should not be abused by the leader.

 

These aren't really partisan issues. It's about getting the thing working again. Likewise in the house there are reforms that could easily be made....closed rule reform, reforming the way the speaker is selected, etc would all help.

 

All these reforms would help Congress regardless of who is in power. And regardless of how much you HATE Harry Reid

Edited November 27, 2012 by TheNewBills

[3rdnlng]

Then leave. If you can't accept that you were the only one to bring up the word "hate," then don't make foolsh statements and them whine about the responses.

 

I called Harry nefarious. Is that hate speech?

[Rob's House]

In all seriousness, enabling congress to enact massive legislation on a bare majority vote may be great for the parties, but might not be so great for the country.

[dayman]

In all seriousness, enabling congress to enact massive legislation on a bare majority vote may be great for the parties, but might not be so great for the country.

 

If after all the procedures that would still exist to modify...and all the forms of maneuvering that would still exist..."massive" legislation passes BOTH Senate and House following extensive debate and public concern attracted to it and THEN is signed by the President it's called passing a law. And then you can vote them out if you don't like it and others feel the same. That's government.

Edited November 27, 2012 by TheNewBills

[Rob's House]

 

 

If after all the procedures that would still exist to modify...and all the forms of maneuvering that would still exist..."massive" legislation passes BOTH Senate and House following extensive debate and public concern attracted to it and THEN is signed by the President it's called passing a law. And then you can vote them out if you don't like it and others feel the same. That's government.

That's the government you're advocating but there's nothing etched in stone stating that's the best way. I think you put too much faith in debate & the vote as a check. Plus, once the legislation is passed & you do get to vote them out the damage is already done & often irreversible. You guys should love the filibuster; it promotes "compromise".

[dayman]

That's the government you're advocating but there's nothing etched in stone stating that's the best way. I think you put too much faith in debate & the vote as a check. Plus, once the legislation is passed & you do get to vote them out the damage is already done & often irreversible. You guys should love the filibuster; it promotes "compromise".

 

If there is a piece of legislation that after nearly 2 weeks of intense debate where a group of senators take the floor and rail against the evils of the bill, and the media covers it and people pay attention over the course of two weeks and then after all that is done the whole bill with everything it has become passes with the majority vote in both houses, goes through conference, and is signed by the president that is good enough. That is basically our government. The founders thought about making it 2/3rds...they didn't they decided only some special issues should be 2/3rds and that's what we have. Plain and simple. Slow, debate...yes...paralysis...no.

[Rob's House]

 

 

If there is a piece of legislation that after nearly 2 weeks of intense debate where a group of senators take the floor and rail against the evils of the bill, and the media covers it and people pay attention over the course of two weeks and then after all that is done the whole bill with everything it has become passes with the majority vote in both houses, goes through conference, and is signed by the president that is good enough. That is basically our government. The founders thought about making it 2/3rds...they didn't they decided only some special issues should be 2/3rds and that's what we have. Plain and simple. Slow, debate...yes...paralysis...no.

Those are the two fatal flaws.

[dayman]

Those are the two fatal flaws.

 

Even if that is the case...then so be it. There is a government elected by the people. Let it govern. If a lengthy filibuster breaks out over a policy for 2 weeks and nobody cares and it ends up passing by a majority of both houses and the president then you get what you pay for...self rule in America. If you can't convince your fellow congressment to stop or change it or anybody to care...then you can't stop if if you don't have the votes.

Edited November 27, 2012 by TheNewBills

[3rdnlng]

Even if that is the case...then so be it. There is a government elected by the people. Let it govern. If a lengthy filibuster breaks out over a policy for 2 weeks and nobody cares and it ends up passing by a majority of both houses and the president then you get what you pay for...self rule in America. If you can't convince your fellow congressment to stop or change it or anybody to care...then you can't stop if if you don't have the votes.

 

 

What's your stance on allowing the illiterate to vote?

[Koko78]

If there is a piece of legislation that after nearly 2 weeks of intense debate where a group of senators take the floor and rail against the evils of the bill, and the media covers it and people pay attention over the course of two weeks and then after all that is done the whole bill with everything it has become passes with the majority vote in both houses, goes through conference, and is signed by the president that is good enough. That is basically our government. The founders thought about making it 2/3rds...they didn't they decided only some special issues should be 2/3rds and that's what we have. Plain and simple. Slow, debate...yes...paralysis...no.

 

So what, exactly, prevents the majority from just sitting there for two weeks of "debate", wholly ignoring the minority and doing what they want despite the opposition in your proposal?

[dayman]

So what, exactly, prevents the majority from just sitting there for two weeks of "debate", wholly ignoring the minority and doing what they want despite the opposition in your proposal?

 

Nothing and that's the point. You try to make your case, try to get at least some adjustments or amendments, if need be you filibuster for a full 2 weeks and try to draw public attention and discussion to the problem you have....and if all that goes on eventually 51 votes can pass it b/c that's the way it's is supposed to work!

 

What is to check that is the fact that it must go through the other house, and then the President also to actually become a law. If as I said earlier a law makes it through both houses with a majority and then the President I don't know what more you want....that's now a law.

[Koko78]

Nothing and that's the point. You try to make your case, try to get at least some adjustments or amendments, if need be you filibuster for a full 2 weeks and try to draw public attention and discussion to the problem you have....and if all that goes on eventually 51 votes can pass it b/c that's the way it's is supposed to work!

 

What is to check that is the fact that it must go through the other house, and then the President also to actually become a law. If as I said earlier a law makes it through both houses with a majority and then the President I don't know what more you want....that's now a law.

 

What you're proposing makes debate irrelevant. The majority has no reason to care what the minority says, and they have no incentive to include the minority in drafting bills and no incentive to consider any minority amendments.

 

'3 men in a room' (which you are effectively advocating for) doesn't work for New York State; it damn sure isn't going to work for the Federal Government.

[B-Man]

What you're proposing makes debate irrelevant. The majority has no reason to care what the minority says, and they have no incentive to include the minority in drafting bills and no incentive to consider any minority amendments.

 

'3 men in a room' (which you are effectively advocating for) doesn't work for New York State; it damn sure isn't going to work for the Federal Government.

 

Too many are enthralled with the word "reform"

 

Majority Leader Reid is not "reforming" filibuster rules, he is not "just going back to what it was" (lol)

 

His every move since he has had the position has been to stifle opposition (in both parties) to what he wants passed.

 

This is absolutely no different. As for following the law, lets see how long it takes him to circumvent the Senate's own 67 vote rule.

 

 

 

"People like that reform Daddy, maybe we aughta get us some"

 

.

[dayman]

Actually Reid is not proposing what I am...and what I am EASILY will still provide the minority with opportunity to curb the bill they just can't stop it outright ... there are many procedural protocols that bolster their power besides just filibuster. And once again...the Senate is just one body. It must make it through 3.

 

Reid is merely proposing that you have to actually stand up and filibuster....and that you need to do it in debate not on a motion to proceed. That's not that radical.

 

The fact that if 59 people want to vote for a bill....41 can prevent it EVEN FROM COMING UP FOR DEBATE is a huge problem with the senate...just remove your political thoughts and even just assume that whatever party you like is in power or recognize it will change...it shouldn't work that way.

Edited November 27, 2012 by TheNewBills

[Koko78]

Actually Reid is not proposing what I am...and what I am EASILY will still provide the minority with opportunity to curb the bill they just can't stop it outright ... there are many procedural protocols that bolster their power besides just filibuster. And once again...the Senate is just one body. It must make it through 3.

 

Reid is merely proposing that you have to actually stand up and filibuster....and that you need to do it in debate not on a motion to proceed. That's not that radical.

 

The fact that if 59 people want to vote for a bill....41 can prevent it EVEN FROM COMING UP FOR DEBATE is a huge problem with the senate...just remove your political thoughts and even just assume that whatever party you like is in power or recognize it will change...it shouldn't work that way.

 

There was a reason it was changed to the current filibuster form.

[Fezmid]

And why are you so opposed? He's not trying to eliminate the filibuster fyi....just put it back together.

I always find it funny that the same people complaining about filibuster thought that the Democrats fleeing the state of Wisconsin in order to prevent anything from happening was "heroic."

[Cinga]

I always find it funny that the same people complaining about filibuster thought that the Democrats fleeing the state of Wisconsin in order to prevent anything from happening was "heroic."

 

Ha!!! Great point!!!

 

Dingy Harry isn't doing this for the good of the country, nor for the Senate. He's doing it as a power grab by him and his party, the little wimp...

It has been HARRY that has not allowed bills to come to the floor for debate. It is HARRY that has not produced a budget resolution in over 3 years! It is HARRY doing this to try to stifle honest debate and amendment procedure.

The Senate, BECAUSE of the 60 vote requirement is the reason things slow down in Washington, FOR THAT VERY REASON!!!! It slows legislation, often stopping it, otherwise any time a single party holds a majority, all bets are off since they could pass anything, by a simple majority.

THAT, is Democracy folks... And this filibuster rule is the only thing left resembling our nation as a REPUBLIC which was established to protect the rights of the smallest of minorities, the individual against the majority...