'cloture' rule ruining progress?

What kind of "progress" do you see happening if that rule were thrown out? You have an opposing party in control in the other body, so I think the answer is for the two parties to compromise.
 
If you want some progress in the Senate I would highly recommend a new majority leader. Perhaps one that would get a budget passed.
 
But, the funny thing is, if the SCOTUS declared it unconstitutional, the second the GOP got control of the Senate, the same proponents of abolition of the filibuster would be declaring its necessity...

I think it's a great check on BOTH parties. It forces them to compromise to get things through the Senate.
 
The people who are currently insisting that "cloture" or the filibuster is mucking up the system will be the same people that are insisting that it is a bedrock principle of American Democracy shortly after the Republicans next take over control of the Senate, which will probably happen this coming January. That was certainly the case the last time the Republicans controlled the US Senate. But now that it is being used to impede the progress of the left, they are taking the exact opposite position.

I would just note that you will not see conservatives flip-flopping on their position on the legality of this procedure. Only the left does this sort of thing.
 
Ah yes. "Conservative politicians are principled" and would cheerfully allow a minority party to thwart the will of the majority of the body even if court rulings gave them a way around it. Apologies Mojo if my sarcasm meter was off.
 
Again, does anyone know what great advances in our society are being blocked by the evil Republicans? I know it is not the United States National Budget because the Majority Leader will not even allow that topic to be discussed on the floor of the Senate.
 
Complete nonsense. First of all, this "go-to" lawyer is confusing a vote to pass something with a vote to end debate on something. They aren't the same thing at all. Why does that matter? Because if we blur that distinction, then there will no intellectually honest reason for any procedural hurdle to require more than a majority rule. Bills would be able to bypass the committee process and the calendar process (which are used to kill bills at least as often as the filibuster is) simply by a majority vote.

Second, the idea that the majority is supposed to rule with complete authority in the Senate is garbage. The Senate is apportioned by state, not population. By its very nature, the Senate isn't based on majority rule. (If it was, then it would simply be redundant with the House.) If 51 Senators (a simple majority) from the smallest states banded together and voted for something, it would reflect about 22 percent of the population - hardly a model of majority rule.

Third, when the Senate cuts off debate and forces a vote on something that also stifles majority rule. What if a Senator wants to offer an amendment to the bill under consideration that the majority of the Senate wants to adopt? Well, you can't cut off debate and order a vote without also cutting off amendments. Basically, the majority is screwed.

Fourth, we're not even talking about real filibusters. Is somebody in the Senate chamber babbling for hours on end Strom Thurmond style? No. Reid just isn't able to pull the votes together to invoke cloture, so he's giving up. That's not a filibuster. That's Reid being a candy-*** and not calling the opposition's bluff.

Instead of being the hypocritical (since they thought the filibuster was great just a few years ago and will think it's great the next time the GOP controls the Senate), self-righteous bellyachers that they are, Democrats should call the GOP's bluff and actually make them filibuster. They will cave eventually if actually forced to do it. Reid just doesn't want that political battle, because the truth of that matter is that he probably can't get the votes to actually pass a lot of this stuff in an election year anyway.
 
The Tea Party was sent to Washington for that specific reason, to stop the socialist steamroller of the Obama Administration. They're doing what the people hired them to do and for that I am happy.
 
You do realize that If the filibuster went away, then all of those as well as the PPACA would be repealed the first week that the GOP got control of both the Senate and House, right? Because there'd be no way for the Dems to stop them...
 
Mr Deez that is possible but what we do know is that the current minority party is using on an ever increasing and unprecedented scale. i think either making them actually filibuster their voice out or limiting discussion to reasonable time limits would fix this.

term limits too.
 
Change the rules! Then reduce their terms to 2 years so that they're more accountable as well. The Senate in its current state is hardly representative of the will of the people. Most of the Senate should have lost their jobs in 2010 after passing Obamacare in the middle of the night.
 
It's all up to Harry Reid. I'd send him a letter, Pharm. If you don't mind adding a PS, please ask him why he won't give any consideration to the budget or any of the jobs bills that the House has already approved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top