Getting Rid of the Filibuster?

[Yamato]

Yeah that's been a thing. We have many, some called czars, unelected policy makers.

The executive makes policy to administer the law, and the more homework we shovel off to the White House (just watch Fox News for a day and learn that seemingly everything comes out of the White House either the right way or the wrong way) the more bureaucracy it's going to need to get all the water carried. When they're wearing green and dying for their country, that's more than good enough for most Republican executives to support. Unfortunately big government comes in many politically correct and patriotic flavors.

[questionmark]

Good thing we dont live in a democracy.

\

as long as your representatives are elected by universal suffrage, like it or not, you are. That the thing is called Republic just denotes that you are ruled by representation. And the privilege to represent can be inherited, by training, by religious piety or by suffrage.That makes the difference.

[ninjadude]

So the President can appoint whoever they want to positions of power without a check and balance now?

No. They have to be approved by a majority of the senate.

[sam12six]

I stopped reading about halfway through the thread because, like most things political, it seems to be an "us vs them" debate instead of a "what is right?" debate.

In my opinion, the filibuster was one of the best and most American things about congressional procedure. The US was founded as a place where one man could stand on his own and not be steamrolled by the majority. The congressional version of this concept was the filibuster. Yes, it can be abused and it can be a pain in the butt, but those are the prices you pay for empowering a minority. It's really no different than the fact that a single juror can create a hung jury so a trial must be completely reheard.

-----

As for the Obamacare debate, it embodies everything that annoys me about politics.

It's like a baseball commission saying, "Our bases are currently made of teflon. Players are getting injured running bases, what should we do?", then someone jumping up and saying, "Women shouldn't be allowed to wear trousers!!", and someone else jumping up and saying, "We should at least let them wear shorts!!" - then the whole thing degenerating into an argument over whether shorts are just cut off trousers while players are still blowing out knees on the teflon bases.

Healthcare is in the crapper. A couple of generations ago, people above the poverty level could pay for their own healthcare (routine stuff, anyway). Once insurance companies gained enough of a foothold, they strongarmed hospitals with their collective bargaining power to receive deep discounts on treatment they paid for. To compensate, hospitals instituted massive price hikes. Vendors piled on and started gouging hospitals for goods and services, insurance companies and HMO/PPO/etc. demanded deeper discounts, hospitals kept raising prices. Now, we are where we are - receiving treatment for a broken ankle can cost as much as buying a new car. Healthcare is screwed because of the system. Instead of a change to the system, we have all our politicians arguing about whether everyone should be a part of the system or only those who can afford the ever rising cost of membership.

Edited December 1, 2013 by sam12six

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

No. They have to be approved by a majority of the senate.

So, as the Democrats control the senate, he can appoint anyone he likes?

The check and balance on presidential power is the president's own party?

[+DieChecker]

I have nothing against the 1% being heard, only against 1% blocking the others. That certainly is not democratic. The point of a democratic parliament is to convince others of your opinion, not to impose your opinion.

Then I'd call for some kind of additional rules on the filibuster, but banning it outright is wrong. Even if it is only for Presidential appointments.

Edited December 2, 2013 by DieChecker