Getting Rid of the Filibuster?

[White Crane Feather]

And now those 75 times when it was used previously, and righteously, will not happen again?

The Democrats don't like how the hammer was being used so they threw it out of the toolbox and it can't be used ever again? The 'nails' of the Senate are useless now. Let's completely remove compromise from politics? Stupidness. Obviously the art of talking to the opposition has vanished from both camps and the only options being used are the same ones used by screaming toddlers.

I hope they understand what they did when it turns on them.

They don't understand squat. All of them are rich. What is it to them what happens as long as they can retreat to their ranch or foreign bank accounts. Politicians are a worthless class of people. This is why the government should always be in check and at the mercy of the people. We are so sadly removed from that. God help us in what will develop in future generations if we let them eat away at democracy.

[Harte]

What president has ever nominated anyone from the other party for anything. The obstructionism of the republicans has reached outrageous levels. More nominees have been blocked in this administration than in US history. It is madness. But I think this is a mistake.

These:

For a little perspective, here's a rundown of the crossovers from a century's worth of presidential Cabinets:

• George W. Bush: Democrat Norman Mineta, transportation secretary.

• Bill Clinton: Republican William Cohen, defense secretary.

• Ronald Reagan: William Bennett was a Democrat when appointed as education secretary in 1985, but the following year, he became a Republican and has remained a conservative Republican voice ever since.

• Jimmy Carter: Republican James Schlesinger, who served as defense secretary under Republican presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, was tapped by Carter as America's first energy secretary.

• Richard Nixon: Daniel Patrick Moynihan served as ambassador to the United Nations, which at the time was not a Cabinet-level position.

• John F. Kennedy: Republicans C. Douglas Dillon as treasury secretary and Robert McNamara as defense secretary. McNamara wasn't such a stretch though, as Time m agazine pointed out at the time, "In politics, McNamara is a lukewarm, liberal Republican who often contributes to Democratic candidates. This year he voted for Kennedy."

• Dwight D. Eisenhower: Democrat and Labor Secretary Martin Patrick Durkin, the "plumber" among Eisenhower's so called "Nine Millionaires and a Plumber" Cabinet. Durkin was replaced in 1953 by fellow Democrat James P. Mitchell, a so-called "Democrat-for-Eisenhower."

• Franklin D. Roosevelt: Republicans Frank Knox as secretary of the Navy and Henry Stimson, secretary of war.

Politifact

So has Barak Obama.

Harte

[spacecowboy342]

Point taken and yet nominating someone from the opposition is not required by the constitution, The role of the senate is advice and consent not pick the nominees themselves. It is to be expected, I think that the opposition party will not like some of the nominees picked by the president in power, but does it not seem excessive that more filibusters have occurred during this administration than during the entire previous history of the US? Still I agree this action will probably come back to bite the dems in the future. But at least now congress might have a chance to do their jobs as the obstructionists won't be able to keep things gridlocked as easily.

[ninjadude]

I tend to take this to mean Obama has not been consulting with any Republicans about his appointments and is instead acting like a Sovereign Prince often naming extremists unacceptable to the minority.

and you would be wrong.

[+and-then]

and you would be wrong.

Obama has been the LEAST inclined president in memory to step across the aisle and attempt to work civilly with the opposition - "I WON", remember? Yes the republicans began attempting every method possible to hamstring his plans but only AFTER he totally disregarded them. Color your world any way you like NN's but don't try to pee down our back and tell us it's raining any more.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

They don't understand squat. All of them are rich. What is it to them what happens as long as they can retreat to their ranch or foreign bank accounts. Politicians are a worthless class of people. This is why the government should always be in check and at the mercy of the people. We are so sadly removed from that. God help us in what will develop in future generations if we let them eat away at democracy.

God help us?

God help THEM if they keep it up if history is anything to go by.

[RavenHawk]

Point taken and yet nominating someone from the opposition is not required by the constitution, The role of the senate is advice and consent not pick the nominees themselves.

If the Senate gives their consent on a nominee then it really doesn’t matter who did the nomination. Checks and balances are satisfied.

It is to be expected, I think that the opposition party will not like some of the nominees picked by the president in power,

The President’s party shouldn’t be rubberstamping nominees either. They should base it on the qualifications of the nominee. This is the purpose of the filibuster. You know, for those very same reasons that Senator Obama and other Socialists were defending (on camera) just a few years ago.

but does it not seem excessive that more filibusters have occurred during this administration than during the entire previous history of the US?

Considering that this President is a Socialist, no it doesn’t seem excessive, just more balanced. This is the way that our Found Fathers designed things. The more anti Constitutional the President’s position, the more virulent the opposition. Now all we have is a parliament. And that just encourages Socialism.

Still I agree this action will probably come back to bite the dems in the future.

You’re damn right! I think between Obamacare and this nuclear option, the Socialists has given the GOP enough ammunition to take the Senate in 2014. And if they would drop the social issues, they’ll have the Whitehouse back in 2016.

But at least now congress might have a chance to do their jobs as the obstructionists won't be able to keep things gridlocked as easily.

Congress was doing their jobs. Their job is to kill legislation because the consensus is that such legislation is wrong for the nation. Their job *IS* gridlock and obstruction. If something gets through, it is because both sides approve of it. Everything the Socialists have gotten through has been by dishonest means. The Socialists have been playing a very well coordinated playbook of attack and hate mongering to get their agenda through. We have effectively had a coup de tat. This President and key members of the Socialist Party should be tried for treason!

Although, I also see that when the GOP gains back the Senate, the Socialists will get slapped in the face with the nuclear option and begin to whine like the spoiled brats they are. But I fear that after the GOP takes back the Whitehouse, the Socialists will resort to something that the Conservatives never get past taking about only and that is revolution in the streets. *They* (Socialists) will do anything to gain power.

[spacecowboy342]

If this president is a socialist then so was Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon. I agree that the presidents party shouldn't just be rubberstamping the nominees but it seems they usually do, possibly because they have the same political goals. The House has limits on filibusters and somehow democracy survives. Treason for what exactly?

[+DieChecker]

The House has limits on filibusters and somehow democracy survives.

But, if I am understanding this correctly, this is not a Limit. It is removal.

From the OP link....

A bitterly divided Senate voted Thursday to eliminate filibusters for most presidential nominees,

[spacecowboy342]

But, if I am understanding this correctly, this is not a Limit. It is removal.

From the OP link....

I suppose you have a point. The house has automatic time limits on filibusters so they don't really have them either. Now in the senate 51 votes or a simple majority can end debate.

[+joc]

I suppose you have a point. The house has automatic time limits on filibusters so they don't really have them either. Now in the senate 51 votes or a simple majority can end debate.

Which is actually...the whole point. What does the Senate do? They debate issues...how else can one come to a factually based understanding of the best course of legislative action? But...now...whichever party controls the Senate...controls totally...no debate allowed...therefore...what becomes of the true function of the Senate? This isn't good...regardless of the party involved. And so...where do we go from here?

Isn't this really an attack on Free Speech...?

Edited November 24, 2013 by joc

[spacecowboy342]

Which is actually...the whole point. What does the Senate do? They debate issues...how else can one come to a factually based understanding of the best course of legislative action? But...now...whichever party controls the Senate...controls totally...no debate allowed...therefore...what becomes of the true function of the Senate? This isn't good...regardless of the party involved. And so...where do we go from here?

Isn't this really an attack on Free Speech...?

Perhaps, but as founding father John Adams said, "When you are in the minority talk. When you are in the majority vote." Nothing new.

[+joc]

Perhaps, but as founding father John Adams said, "When you are in the minority talk. When you are in the majority vote." Nothing new.

But....now, the minority cannot talk...

[spacecowboy342]

But....now, the minority cannot talk...

I'm sure there will still be debate just not obstructionism on every single item

[Professor Buzzkill]

lets say you were in the minority on a major issue that will negatively impact a majority of citizens. As most people are apathetic unless an issue HAS already impacted them, how are you supposed to stop the majority voting through the legislation?

I think the filibuster over the healthcare act has highlighted the fact that the minority was dead right and the majority have voted to negatively impact most Americans

[spartan max2]

I'm sure there will still be debate just not obstructionism on every single item

Come on man you cant seriously think this is a good thing? Our system tried to set itself up in a way so that 51% of the population cant easily force things on the other 49%.

[+joc]

joc, on 24 November 2013 - 03:56 PM, said:

But....now, the minority cannot talk...

I'm sure there will still be debate just not obstructionism on every single item

You are sure? What kind of debate? Debate dictated by only one side...and ended when the 'debate' reaches a plateau the controlling side is not willing to ascend to is not debate.

[spacecowboy342]

lets say you were in the minority on a major issue that will negatively impact a majority of citizens. As most people are apathetic unless an issue HAS already impacted them, how are you supposed to stop the majority voting through the legislation?

I think the filibuster over the healthcare act has highlighted the fact that the minority was dead right and the majority have voted to negatively impact most Americans

It's called majority role for a reason. The house can't filibuster yet democracy goes on

[spacecowboy342]

Come on man you cant seriously think this is a good thing? Our system tried to set itself up in a way so that 51% of the population cant easily force things on the other 49%.

I'm not saying I think it's a good thing just not the death of democracy and I think the repubs brought it on themselves by purposeful obstructionism. Still, as I said I think it will come back to haunt the dems in the future. We still have the bill of rights to protect minority views and I don't think it was quite 51-49. Again, I wish they had left the rules alone.

[spacecowboy342]

Filibusters are not debate. You worry about the minorities right to thwart the will of the majority. What about the majority's rights. It is called majority rule for a reason.

[danielost]

I'm sure there will still be debate just not obstructionism on every single item

Our government was designed to be obstructionistic. Gridlock is supposed to be the norm. Dictaters and kings use rubber stamps. The president of the usa is supposed to go to the house and senate with his hat in his hand and beg for support. Now, we should change the title from president o king or dictator you choose.

[danielost]

Filibusters are not debate. You worry about the minorities right to thwart the will of the majority. What about the majority's rights. It is called majority rule for a reason.

It is majority rule bevause they carry the vote. But with the minorty now gaged, the majority carries the debate too.

[spacecowboy342]

Our government was designed to be obstructionistic. Gridlock is supposed to be the norm. Dictaters and kings use rubber stamps. The president of the usa is supposed to go to the house and senate with his hat in his hand and beg for support. Now, we should change the title from president o king or dictator you choose.

Show me in the constitution where filibusters are mentioned. Our government is designed for majority rule. How is it dictatorial when a majority of senators vote on something?

[spacecowboy342]

It is majority rule bevause they carry the vote. But with the minorty now gaged, the majority carries the debate too.

No now votes are able to be taken. These filibusters were the right's attempt to hi-jack the government again.Again look at the house. They have no filibusters and yet democracy somehow goes on

[danielost]

I'm not saying I think it's a good thing just not the death of democracy and I think the repubs brought it on themselves by purposeful obstructionism. Still, as I said I think it will come back to haunt the dems in the future. We still have the bill of rights to protect minority views and I don't think it was quite 51-49. Again, I wish they had left the rules alone.

You mean those rights that the democrats have been trying to kill since I was a kid. Those rights that can now disappear with a simple majority vote. Which may happen if the democrats look like they will lose next year. The same constitution that limits the president to eight years, which obama can now change the rules on with a simple 51-49 vote in the senate.