I think there are good arguments on both sides, but ultimately, I see this is a limitation on government against a tyranny of the majority, and a good thing.
13 thoughts on “The Filibuster”
Comments are closed.
I think there are good arguments on both sides, but ultimately, I see this is a limitation on government against a tyranny of the majority, and a good thing.
Comments are closed.
Well, yeah, it’s a good thing if both sides honor it. But, honoring a treaty whilst your enemies are maneuvering troops to your border is not the path of wisdom. What the Republicans need to do is abrogate it so thoroughly that the Dems come back begging to make it truly binding on both sides.
The President has already gone nuclear. Congress can up the ante or fold. Interesting times.
I agree on keeping the fillibuster, but only if it’s actually kept. As is, as the D’s showed with their nuclear option move, it exists at the whim of the majority.
The Republicans need to either find a way to make the fillibuster immune to simple-majority nuclear options (I think that could be done via senate rules?) or scrap it, because the D’s have proven that they won’t respect it unless it suites them. Respecting the fillibuster when the other side doesn’t would be quite foolish.
Senate rules are subject to change by the majority. The current Senate majority can’t make a rule that can’t be undone by a future Senate majority. The only things that restrain the majority from making rules that disempower the minority are tradition, and the knowledge that today’s majority will be tomorrow’s minority.
D’s do not play reasonably so eliminate it:
Here in Ma. when a Democrat was governor, the rules were that the Guv could appoint an interim Senator when a US Senator left office before the term was up.
When Romney became guv, the Dems changed the rules so that Romney could NOT appoint a Senator – we were forced to have a special election.
When Romney left office and Deval Patrcik (a dem) became governor, they Dems changed the rules back so that Patrcik could appoint a Senator.
The dem’s are not interested in the spirit of the law (or rule or cocent).
They care only about results.
OK, dumb question of the week. What happens under the “let it burn” strategy of letting funding for Homeland Security lapse.
Does this mean we get to board airplanes without onerous security screenings? Will airlines “pony up” and supply their own security. Yeah, yeah, there is more to Homeland Security than the TSA airport screener, but the President is already not enforcing immigration laws or returning people crossing the border? I mean, will bad things that we really care about or worry about happen, or is Homeland Security, dare I say it, a jobs program?
It means right wing extremist, the only violent extremist DHS recognize, will do something. Not sure what, but I’m guessing they will go about their day not purchasing condoms for women they don’t know and that will be seen as patriarchal and oppressive. This oppression has been held in check by hiring young men and women to grab strangers private parts and checking for birth control before they board planes. Some people got a bit violent about bring checked like that, so DHS implemented measures to keep people in line, such as taking away water from them. Without DHS, people may board planes with water but without birth control. From there, it is not hard to see the slippery slope.
On this, I honestly blame Bush.
Thanks for the mirthquake.
No. It just means that “essential” employees will continue to work, and hope they get reimbursed.
They know that now only will they be paid, so will all those “non-essential” employees who’re getting a vacation.
Meh. This article didn’t understand the history of the filibuster. Until very recently, if you wanted to filibuster, you needed to keep speaking, straight. It was very difficult to do, and no one did it except for things that were really urgent. Think, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.
Recently, they changed the rules so that you didn’t need to speak. Now they can block a bill unless you get 60% support. That’s new, it’s not hundreds of years old, and it’s a bad idea. They should put it back to the old system.
Agreed. Also they should not allow running relay talkers….one talker spelling another.
You want to filibuster? You gt one shot from one person. When that person stops – take the vote.
The rule now is, elections have consequences. Playing with hands tied is one reason they are called the stupid party. If you want people to get off the couch you have to fight for them. Do we consider Breitbart bad because he fought? Why do people forgive Christie, who broke the 11th commandment? Because he fought. Walker, fighter.
McCain? War hero and surrender monkey. Romney? Surrender monkey, not even a war hero.
We need fighters. Even if they fight like a girl.
Don’t give them the filibuster. Don’t give them an inch on any front. When a president is making law by executive order, it’s long past the time of playing nice.