Today's Birthdays
There are no members with birthdays on this day.
Current Topics
The Disintegration of Trumpism
by perotista - 08/02/21 02:19 AM
Winning
by perotista - 08/01/21 07:29 PM
Government
by jgw - 08/01/21 06:47 PM
no vaccine folks
by pondering_it_all - 08/01/21 06:40 PM
Jan 6 Select Committee Hearings - are you watching
by pdx rick - 08/01/21 06:11 PM
California Drought, Grapes of Wrath in Reverse?
by Greger - 07/30/21 02:19 PM
Summertime Roundtable
by logtroll - 07/30/21 12:56 PM
Lies and the Law
by Greger - 07/30/21 01:18 AM
Vaccines, over 65, youth
by Jeffery J. Haas - 07/29/21 11:04 AM
Arizona Audit/Recount 2020 election
by pondering_it_all - 07/27/21 11:54 PM
Roundtable for Spring 2021
by Jeffery J. Haas - 07/26/21 12:18 PM
cdc report
by pondering_it_all - 07/23/21 08:47 PM
lamda variant
by Jeffery J. Haas - 07/23/21 04:15 PM
Haiti - little problem
by Greger - 07/21/21 05:39 PM
Hyperinflation, debt, and the survival of nations
by pondering_it_all - 07/12/21 08:26 PM
National Commission to Investigate the January 6
by perotista - 07/03/21 04:10 PM
Popular Topics(Views)
9,389,180 my own book page
4,589,134 We shall overcome
3,578,303 Campaign 2016
3,294,630 Trump's Trumpet
2,577,661 3 word story game
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
#333009 03/07/21 01:44 AM
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 43,936
Likes: 1
Member
CHB-OG
OP Offline
Member
CHB-OG
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 43,936
Likes: 1


According to this article in The Hill (03/04/21), all the Democrats have to do is wait out a Republican temper-tantrum aka Filibuster, then The Dems can vote the measure along party lines if no Republicans vote for the measure as well.

Quote:
An actual filibuster will ensue and will go on; possibly for a month or two. All filibusters in history have ended sometime — the longest filibuster lasted 60 days when the 1964 Civil Rights bill was held up. Sooner or later, all filibusters will fizzle and a simple majority (51 percent) can then pass the legislation.


If this is true, then somebody ought to tell the Senate Dems and get going on getting ol' Joe's agenda passed. smile


Contrarian, extraordinaire


pdx rick #333015 03/07/21 09:52 AM
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 11,155
Likes: 10
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 11,155
Likes: 10
That could happen, but if Republicans are going to be insistent on blocking every normal bill Democrats propose, sooner or later Manchin and Senema will realize they need to vote to end or modify the filibuster. If not, we would have a repeat of the Obama administration when the Republicans blocked everything.

A proposal they both might go for would be to modify the filibuster so it takes 60 votes the first day, 55 the second, and 50 votes the third day to reach cloture. This leaves plenty of time for debate on a bill, while preserving majority rule. Interesting point: There is nothing about the filibuster or a 60 vote requirement in the constitution. The founders wrote it as a simple majority, with the VP casting a tie-breaker vote. If it ever got to the Supreme Court, they could easily decide it's unconstitutional.

pdx rick #333016 03/07/21 01:31 PM
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 720
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 720
No leave the Filibuster, first known use - Ancient Rome, during Julies Ceaser's time.

Just take it back to its roots - want to filibuster a bill, get up and talk until you can not, then if you can, start again the next day otherwise it would be voted upon.

A Republic is a majority rule form of government, and yes I know it cuts both ways...


Vote 2022!

Life is like a PB&J sandwich. The older you get, the moldery and crustier you get.

Now, get off my grass!
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 11,075
Likes: 10
L
veteran
Offline
veteran
L
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 11,075
Likes: 10
It has always seemed irrational to me in the practice of government to allow tricks and gimmicks to influence legislating. Even when a filibuster required actual effort, the subject matter should have been limited to the bill under consideration, with limits on repetition. You know, like real debate...

This modern thing of defaulting to needing 60 votes not only changes the mechanics of approval, it also often avoids potentially useful substantive debate.

My vote is to keep the filibuster, but require it to conform to serious discussion of the issues. Make 'em behave like responsible adults!


“You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
To change something, build a new model that makes the old model obsolete.”
– R. Buckminster Fuller
pdx rick #333018 03/07/21 03:13 PM
Joined: Sep 2019
Posts: 1,448
Likes: 2
member
Offline
member
Joined: Sep 2019
Posts: 1,448
Likes: 2
The problem isn't the filibuster, it's today's modern era of politics we entered into. The polarization, the divisiveness and the mega, ultra high partisanship. Of the straight party line vote. This is a relative new thing going back 20-25 years. Prior to that a straight party line vote was very rare if they occurred at all.

Even the 1964 civil rights bill which included a very long filibuster was more or less bipartisan with 61% house Democrats and 80% of House republicans voting for it, in the senate was 66% of democrats and 82% of republicans voting for cloture with the final version of the bill passing the senate with 63% of democrats and 82% Republicans.

Now I'm all in favor of keeping the filibuster. Now I was really peeved at Reid for his first use and setting the precedence with the nuclear option which came back and bit them in the butt with Kavanaugh and Barrett. I'm positive if the Democrats eliminate the filibuster for another short term gain, it too will come back to bite them even harder. But that's their call, not mine.

With the nuclear option a reality, I'd like to see a change. I'm all in favor of a president having the people he wants in his cabinet and heading the different government agencies. Since the Constitution states the senate must confirm, for these I'd go with a simple majority vote. It already is considering Reid's setting the precedence with his first use of the nuclear option.

Second, judicial appointment, I'd raise them to 2/3rds of the senate needed to confirm. That means more moderate judges and takes some of the politics out of judicial appointment. A federal judge would have to be supported by some of both parties. Most judicial appointments are carried by 80-20 or even 90-10 in the senate today.

Legislation, I'd leave it at 60.

The problem is our modern era of politics, where both parties try to stop anything and everything of the other party from ever being passed. No merits is given to the legislation being good or bad, just who proposed it. Somehow we have to get back to an older era of our politics and leave this modern era of polarization, divisiveness and mega, ultra high partisanship behind us.


It's high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first instead of their political party. For way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.
pdx rick #333019 03/07/21 03:21 PM
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 43,936
Likes: 1
Member
CHB-OG
OP Offline
Member
CHB-OG
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 43,936
Likes: 1
Quote:
...This is a relative new thing going back 20-25 years....

What does this time frame have in common? Oh yes! Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich and the start-up of Fox News. Hmm


Contrarian, extraordinaire


Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 11,075
Likes: 10
L
veteran
Offline
veteran
L
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 11,075
Likes: 10
Originally Posted By: perotista
The problem is our modern era of politics, where both parties try to stop anything and everything of the other party from ever being passed. No merits is given to the legislation being good or bad, just who proposed it. Somehow we have to get back to an older era of our politics and leave this modern era of polarization, divisiveness and mega, ultra high partisanship behind us.

I'm curious as to how keeping a 60 vote requirement addresses the inability to work together problem? It can just as easily be blamed for the chronic obstruction by the minority party. I think the lack of working together is more of a cultural problem, rather than a structural issue. And the cultural dysfunction does seem to flow from right-wing misinformation, lies, and propaganda, not from honest rational ideological principles.

I think "member directed spending" will actually stimulate bipartisanship.


“You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
To change something, build a new model that makes the old model obsolete.”
– R. Buckminster Fuller
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 18,058
Likes: 8
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 18,058
Likes: 8
Quote:
I'm positive if the Democrats eliminate the filibuster for another short term gain, it too will come back to bite them even harder. But that's their call, not mine.


Why should it concern you that Democrats might get bitten in the butt?

You aren't one of them and their agenda is not your agenda.

The filibuster itself seems to have worked more to divide the parties than it has to unite them. In a different day and time it might serve a purpose, today it's just a spanner in the works and it prevents either party from getting anything done. To support the filibuster you support the gridlock.

All is not fair in war or love. But in politics it is.

Trump proved that.


Good coffee, good weed, and time on my hands...
pdx rick #333025 03/07/21 05:43 PM
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 18,058
Likes: 8
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 18,058
Likes: 8
Quote:
No merits is given to the legislation being good or bad, just who proposed it.

Pero...
Perhaps you could present a short list of Republican legislation which the Democrats have filibustered?

Or a few examples of Republican legislation you believe Democrats should have supported?

Or even a few bills proposed by Republicans that you supported?

I submit that this filibuster thing has been a one sided affair, just like actual effective legislation.


Good coffee, good weed, and time on my hands...
pdx rick #333026 03/07/21 06:13 PM
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 4,238
Likes: 4
J
jgw Offline
old hand
Offline
old hand
J
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 4,238
Likes: 4
Hopefully The Dems will do this. First, however, they have to take time to eat another of their own, this time the Governor of New York. Once they get that done THEN they might proceed.

Page 1 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 50 guests, and 3 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
KevFilthyANML, Risky, Gladys G. Jackson, Beach Baby, Superfly
6,296 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums61
Topics17,167
Posts308,822
Members6,296
Most Online294
Dec 6th, 2017
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.4.21 Page Time: 0.013s Queries: 36 (0.003s) Memory: 3.0300 MB (Peak: 3.2529 MB) Data Comp: Zlib Server Time: 2021-08-02 08:47:24 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS