What good is the filibuster anyway?

[LittleDixie]

Then you are functionally against the fillibuster. Nobody is talking about ending it entirely. We just don't want to explain each and everytime we discuss the situation the nuance between the talking and the procederal. That is what conservatives do. They with all "and then?" until you just pass out.

No, I am pro-filibuster. Honestly, anything to slow or stop new legislation from being passed is a good thing in my book. To my knowledge, there is no count on how many laws exist in this country and that simple fact - the fact that we can't count them, is enough for me to pump the brakes.

I know that you really want to pass laws for your new agenda, but an adversarial system is the best shot we have at getting laws that actually make sense and aren't total disasters.

 

[Dribble]

No, I am pro-filibuster. Honestly, anything to slow or stop new legislation from being passed is a good thing in my book. To my knowledge, there is no count on how many laws exist in this country and that simple fact - the fact that we can't count them, is enough for me to pump the brakes.

I know that you really want to pass laws for your new agenda, but an adversarial system is the best shot we have at getting laws that actually make sense and aren't total disasters.

Wrong. This assumes the minority will actually look at the merits of the new legislation. When the Republicans come out and openly say anything you propose will be stopped....it creates a non-functioning government....which is what Fascists want.

Why should a black vote count less in certain states than other states?

 

[Champakian]

It's a damned good thing that Democrats would never obstruct the Republicans.


:nods:


They would never leave the state to prevent a quorum, for example...

 

[GothTalk]

Wrong. This assumes the minority will actually look at the merits of the new legislation. When the Republicans come out and openly say anything you propose will be stopped....it creates a non-functioning government....which is what Fascists want.

Fascism is a function of a functioning government....strong authoritarianism of any kind requires it.

Libertarians and anarchist are the ones who want the non-functioning government.

Why are you so fucking backwards???? Oh you're totally uneducated and have no fucking clue what "fascism" is or what you are talking about politically in general.

Why should a black vote count less in certain states than other states?

Nobody is saying they should you fucking psycho.....you're just bringing up irrelevant bullshit because your brand of authoritarianism isn't getting anywhere.

 

[JohnnySavage]

...Libertarians and anarchist are the ones who want the non-functioning government.

....

I consider myself a libertarian and I don't want a non-functioning government. I want a small, efficient Federal government that stays in its Constitutional lane. I tend to be more liberal when it comes to state and local governments because I have more input in to them, and where I choose to live.

 

[Champakian]

That's right Johnny.

Just as soon as I send a neighbor to DC, he becomes a stranger.



(Or even worse, a fan of the not-Redskins. )

 

[JohnnySavage]

The announcement of the new name is only 3 weeks away! I'm sure it will be something stupid. They should just stay, The Team.

 

[Champakian]

The DC Greenbacks and the color of the uniforms will remind us about the DC debt.

 

[JohnnySavage]

What ever it is, someone will be offended.

 

[Champakian]

Going 6-10 will leave everyone offended.

 

[ll74]

I've heard it's definitely the Washington Admirals.

 

[JohnnySavage]

No, we are used to that. Luckily, our division has a long history of sucking.

 

[JohnnySavage]

Swamp rats.

 

[Champakian]

(D)rats

 

[WillJ8787]

The framers didn't want a democracy, they wanted a republic. The constitution was written as a big compromise. Prior to the 12th amendment, the president and vice president were often from different parties to force compromise. The filibuster is the only thing preventing this country from full blown chaos.

Yeah, and? We all want a Democracy today. At least moderates and those on the left.

 

[ll74]

Yeah, and? We all want a Democracy today. At least moderates and those on the left.

I think the minority should have the power to pump the brakes, but right now, the power is too easy...they can phone it in from their office.

If the minority are required to work harder for their objection, it will lessen the abuse and increase visibility on their objection....both positives imo. Make the filibuster harder....and I believe both sides would be happier.

 

[GothTalk]

I consider myself a libertarian and I don't want a non-functioning government. ​I want a small, efficient Federal government that stays in its Constitutional lane.
​I tend to be more liberal when it comes to state and local governments because I have more input in to them, and where I choose to live.

In colloquial terms I would agree with you. I mean anyone who support free speech, gun rights and private property is a Glibertoonian alt-Reich NAZI! in mainstream America these days.

However I'm using the terms in their proper and forms. I say liberal as in people/ideas that are pro-liberty, and libertarians as people who reject the concept of positive liberty. Not the misused 'liberal' as in "Democrats anything they say no matter how psychotically authoritarian and controlling. " and libertarians as liberals who reject the concept of positive liberty.

Libertarians are very similar and part of the "liberal" branch of political philosophies but are different from liberals in that they reject the concept of positive liberty. They don't feel that government can or does things that promote/enhance individual liberty, they think it only hurts/oppresses people.

LIttleDixie for example, I think, is actually one of the most libertarian posters on the board.

The way you describe yourself and from what I've seen of you, you seem to be a classical English/western liberal federally and maybe lean a bit social liberal locally. Overall a right leaning but a rather moderate liberal. Or as Democrats might call you, "like, literally omg totes Hitler." .

 

[Sean Renaud]

No, I am pro-filibuster. Honestly, anything to slow or stop new legislation from being passed is a good thing in my book. To my knowledge, there is no count on how many laws exist in this country and that simple fact - the fact that we can't count them, is enough for me to pump the brakes.

I know that you really want to pass laws for your new agenda, but an adversarial system is the best shot we have at getting laws that actually make sense and aren't total disasters.

You just said you are not pro-fillibuster. Right now the only fillibuster in use is procedural save when someone wants to perform for the crowd. If you are against THAT you are anti-fillibuster.

Go on, run a poll. See how many people are against the standing fillibuster? I bet you'll find a handful of people but nowhere near a procederal. If you are SO dead set on preventing something that you and your crew will tag team forever go for it. Something in it must be pretty bad (from your perspective) but currently its used as "Nope, I don't care whats in it, we're not doing anything."

 

[Bud_Spencer]

I have always wanted that rule abolished, regardless of who controlled the Senate at the time. It is nothing but a formula for obstructionism. There is a good reason why its most famous usages were by Southern senators blocking civil rights legislation.

It's a welcome hysteresis.

 

[Rightguide]

I have always wanted that rule abolished, regardless of who controlled the Senate at the time. It is nothing but a formula for obstructionism. There is a good reason why its most famous usages were by Southern senators blocking civil rights legislation.

The Senate has the constitutional right o make its own rules. There's a reason why you're so ignorant about its use and why you'll be crying for its return in November. Schumer's plan however may already be dead.

 

[pecksniff]

No, I am pro-filibuster. Honestly, anything to slow or stop new legislation from being passed is a good thing in my book. To my knowledge, there is no count on how many laws exist in this country and that simple fact - the fact that we can't count them, is enough for me to pump the brakes.

You can't count them because laws cannot be quantified in that way. If you go to the library, you will find your state's statutes collected in a set of bound volumes, but you cannot properly count each separate statute as a "law," as each has multiple subsections and paragraphs treating different topics under the general heading. Also, if you go to a law library, you will find a case reporter collecting all appellate judicial decisions in your region of the country, and each such opinion from an appellate court of your state is legally binding on all the courts of your state -- but you cannot call each opinion a "law" either, as each will treat of a wide range of different legal issues.

 

[pecksniff]

It's a damned good thing that Democrats would never obstruct the Republicans.

Of course, the situation will not arise until the Republicans think of something to do other than obstructing the Democrats.

 

[pecksniff]

The announcement of the new name is only 3 weeks away! I'm sure it will be something stupid. They should just stay, The Team.

There used to be a baseball team called the Washington Senators -- they could use that name.

 

[ll74]

You can't count them because laws cannot be quantified in that way. If you go to the library, you will find your state's statutes collected in a set of bound volumes, but you cannot properly count each separate statute as a "law," as each has multiple subsections and paragraphs treating different topics under the general heading. Also, if you go to a law library, you will find a case reporter collecting all appellate judicial decisions in your region of the country, and each such opinion from an appellate court of your state is legally binding on all the courts of your state -- but you cannot call each opinion a "law" either, as each will treat of a wide range of different legal issues.

You make a good point here. This is one of the reasons Trump's regulation "remove 2 for every 1 added" was ill conceived.

 

[pecksniff]

It's a welcome hysteresis.

How does that word apply?