Big Baybee
Member
Wow. Wow.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2012 Community Thread |OT2| This thread title is now under military control
- Thread starter AlteredBeast
- Start date
- Status
Wow. Wow.
Blergmeister
Member
From what I understand it goes like this:
Every session of the Senate gets to set it's own rules which they elect to use the previous sessions. When setting this, though, they are not beholden to any rules except those in the Constitution which involve the minimum of 50+1. So at the begining of the session they can adopt the previous sessions rules minus the filibuster by a 50+1 vote, the minimum needed to set the rules for that session.
They may also be able to do this at any time.
Hasn't the Obama administration created millions of jobs? Also, isn't the only reason why the UE rate is so high is because of the large cuts in public sector hiring?
What a pathetic campaign.
Chicago Style!
TacticalFox88
Banned
They have. Problem is A)Republicans and their constituents are completely ignorant of it or B) Republicans know he has and simply don't care and want to repeat the talking point.
cartoon_soldier
Member
Media Outrage Level : 0
Every time I hear something from Sununu he sounds like a raving lunatic with barely a brain cell to be found.
Anyway, what exactly qualifies one to be a Romney surrogate anyway? Does Sununu have a job in the campaign or is he just a surrogate because he's a republican talking about the current campaign fight? I ask this also because Thinkprogress has Ron Johnson labeled as a surrogate today, too, and I wasn't aware he was specifically in the campaign, either.
cartoon_soldier
Member
They are officially deployed by the campaign on things like calls with reporters, or to campaign on their behalf at places, appear on news shows, etc.
Thanks, interesting. I don't want any party being able to run shit through with a 51-49 advantage.
The Librarian
Banned
The horror at the idea of the Senate working as it had been for the vast majority of the country's history.
Blergmeister
Member
Why do you hate the Constitution?
Why are you so against the founding fathers and their vision, Kosmo? I thought you liked the constitution...
RustyNails
Member
Kosmo hates Freedom confirmed
TacticalFox88
Banned
Because 60 vote majority has worked out soooo fucking well the past 50 years. >.<
This I can agree with. I don't think the filibuster is great, but it has been abused by both parties. I'm open to reform ideas.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Yawn. I'll believe it when I see it. McConnell would certainly pull that trigger, but Reid has blinked too much
The Librarian
Banned
Abused by one far more than the other.
PhoenixDark
Banned
I really hope the Obama camp doesn't demand an apology. Let comments like this spread and wait for the backlash
I understand Kosmo's desire to check power -- I think most of us would agree that unbridled power for any individual or even small group would be a bad thing.
But my solution to that problem is a series of checks and balances; on the governmental level, divide judicial, legislative, and executive power; outside of government, empower corporations which can grow and become quite powerful in their own right. We have divisions of military, departments of education and transport and foreign affairs. Some of these powers overlap, but many of them do not, and are distinct areas of governance and power.
That is how I would want unbridled power to be prevented. "Just make everything inefficient and nonfunctional" is not an effective guard against this problem, I believe.
But my solution to that problem is a series of checks and balances; on the governmental level, divide judicial, legislative, and executive power; outside of government, empower corporations which can grow and become quite powerful in their own right. We have divisions of military, departments of education and transport and foreign affairs. Some of these powers overlap, but many of them do not, and are distinct areas of governance and power.
That is how I would want unbridled power to be prevented. "Just make everything inefficient and nonfunctional" is not an effective guard against this problem, I believe.
it doesnt matter. The filibuster always had a purpose but it wasn't abused when it wasn't as easy to just "do it". You also need a majority leader that has a set of balls to break a filibuster. Harry Reid is not that.
no need to demand an apology for that, its so stupid and insane that it does more damage just sitting out there then anyone responding to it
cartoon_soldier
Member
I would think an ad run within the Black Media
"A top Romney campaign surrogate claims that President Obama is not American"
You're about 225 years too late with this idea. I kid, I kid.
I'm sure others here will have a bone to pick about letting corporations grow with unbridled power.
Pass. While I don't have much to say about powerful private interests in general, corporate influence on our democracy is a toxic one and should be kept under control by the entity actually accountable to the people.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Perhaps if you ignore the 60s
Obviously republicans abuse it more now, but historically both parties have used it to extremes. I think there are other ways to reform it without strictly moving down to a 51 majority, so I kind of agree with Kosmo here
The Librarian
Banned
It does if you're trying to further "both sides are to be blamed equally" narrative.
Harry Reid has never before made a promise to reform the filibuster, IIRC. At the very least, his words have never been harsher about it than they were this week. He talked about it, sure, and he heard the freshman senators about it, but he never went as far as he did this week.
I don't think he'll get rid of it, but I do believe him when he says he'll reform it. Perhaps institute the talking filibuster again.
When mostly Republicans and some southern Democrats were trying to filibuster the civil rights legislation?
You're about 225 years too late with this idea. I kid, I kid.
I'm sure others here will have a bone to pick about letting corporations grow with unbridled power.
I definitely feel they should be bridled, I just don't feel they should be nonexistent.
They had power in the 60s, for example. Not as much as they have now, but certainly some. Where the line is drawn, of course, is a more specific discussion.
worldrunover
Member
i'm not really interested in playing a blame game as its just going to escalate uncontrollably now anyway, whoever is the minority party is going to "payback" the other party. Its a never ending cycle.
But there were more cloture votes in the last 4 years then in every year before the 1990s combined. The 60s isn't a good year to pick
Reforming the filibuster is essential to restoring a modicum of functionality to the Senate. But if Republicans retain the majority in the House, I fail to see the impetus for reform. That would already necessitate Republican support for legislation. The only scenario I envisage producing reform is a unified government whose initiatives are repeatedly impeded by a few votes; i.e., the 111th Congress.
A roster of obvious options. I've always had Pawlenty and Portman on my list. And I suppose Jindal is inoffensive enough, aside from his disastrous response to President Obama's address to a joint session of Congress, to warrant consideration. Further, it's fairly obvious the Romney Campaign's expedited the process to distract from the controversy over Bain.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
But the "far right" crowd is already guaranteed to vote for Romney.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Getting back to the tax return issue, I think anybody who ignores the issue is foolish.
That's going to be a huge problem for Romney, especially with the economy and all the fuss about tax returns/offshore accounts. Only releasing 2 years? Please.
That's going to be a huge problem for Romney, especially with the economy and all the fuss about tax returns/offshore accounts. Only releasing 2 years? Please.
RustyNails
Member
But the question is will they move their asses and go out and vote for him? Enthusiasm counts.
It's not pot that romney's insinuating...
To add to this, I think we need to enable the party in power to actually pass their agenda, within the confines of constitutional process. The public rightly expects that when one party holds the House, Senate and White House, that they can do what they said they would do. Only, they can't, because of the filibuster. But the public is also not tuned in enough to congressional process to understand the nature of the problem, so when things don't get done, they throw everyone under the bus. (It should not have been a big deal when Ted Kennedy's seat was taken by Scott Brown - that put Dems at a 59-41 majority; but in effect, it ended their ability to pass legislation.)
A majority rule Senate would better enable the public to see the consequences of the policies the party they voted in are enacting, and make decisions about their next vote on that basis. The filibuster is a chokehold on the democratic process.
Yeah, I don't think you would be singing this tune if Republicans ever get full power again.
TacticalFox88
Banned
By then the country would be fucked to hell and back anyway, so it really wouldn't matter that much.
The filibuster is a mechanism that was retained to ensure full deliberation. The House was designed to function as a majoritarian institution. With the exceptions of proposed constitutional amendments and overriding a presidential veto, only a simple majority is required in the House. The Senate was designed to be more deliberative. That is why they were designated the responsibility of ratifying treaties and other functions. Thus, the filibuster was retained, after its accidental conception, to ensure the majority did not silence the minority. But the filibuster has become routinely exploited to impede legislation. If the filibuster were utilized only in this manner, I'd support its retention. But it's not functioned in this manner for a while. Presently, it's an instrument to undermine the democratic process. And its imperative we either reform or eliminate it.
And you wouldn't sing this tune if Republicans gained unified power.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Yeah, the Filibuster is one of those things that sounds perfect in theory until that pesky human nature actually gets involved.
PPP Obama Up 5 in Iowa
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/poll-obama-lead-shrinks-to-5-in-iowa
Seems like it would lead to 2-4 years of one policy and then power switches and everything done before gets banished unless one party can maintain control longer than that.
He's right. Here's the new attack lol
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/07/fox-news-revisits-obamas-cocaine-use-129037.html
PhoenixDark
Banned
Some? 18 southern democrats.
Blergmeister
Member
I would think that would be how it starts because each party has a "backlog" of laws they've been wanting to implement for decades. So a party would implement a backlogged law and then, when another party comes to power, either the law would prove too popular to remove and would remain or the other party would remove it or implement their own take on it. After this then what? Either the new take would prove to be negative and would be switched back (likely due to the balance of power flipping again) or the new law would stay. The back and forth would only happen a few times before the backlog is realatively cleared, and then normal governance can resume again. That is my thoughts on it at least.
Edit: Is there any examples or reading materials of a similar situation or it's effects?
NathanMcMahon
Banned
why does the number matter?
and why is the argument over the filibuster change reduced to you'll regret it, when it currently sucks as is? Maybe it gets worse, maybe it gets better, but at least there's some effort to fix whats broken.
It was not especially problematic as institutional norms, and periodic reform, prevented its abuse. But the deterioration of Senate norms has removed that safeguard and the procedure is now routinely exploited. Still, I'm sympathetic to the protection of the minority. Starting with Gingrich's ascent to the speakership, the minority party has been systematically ostracized by the House majority. I think we can protect the right of the minority to participate in the debate while ensuring the Senate actually functions. I favor a proposal that would require a graduated threshold to maintain a filibuster until a simple majority could invoke cloture. That would protect the minority while respecting the majority.
Wow.
As has been said in the past, when you don't have a record to run on, make your opponent someone to run from. Make a big election about small things.
- Status