What good is the filibuster anyway?

[GothTalk]

Sure there is. First you said it was someone else's responsibility to prove your baseless claims wrong, then you said it wasn't your responsibility to prove or disprove someone else's claims. Within half an hour of each other, too.

No, I didn't say it wap someone else's responsibility, you're a liar.

I simply didn't feel like spoon feeding you Congressional records for you to just ignore them when they reval that democrats do in fact LOVE the filibuster when they are the minority.

You want to show just what a partisan boot licker you are? Go ahead...I love watching you pretend democrats NEVER used the filibuster.

Pretending MLK wanted skin color made most important especially over content of character is even better.

 

[Pad_Foot]

Fucking filibuster was NOT in the Constitution
50-50 already over represents the small states
With Gerrymandering it’s worse!!

The Republicans broke all “rules” and niceties with the Supreme Court

Now? They want to doom Democracy in the states by bare majorities.., that are gerrymandered

Fuck ‘em!!

There is no “rule by law”
No historical niceties
Votes along partisan lines is the way it will be

Now… for an Impeachment??!
That and maybe ONLY that has to remain 60 votes!!!

Watch the Trumplikans try to change that !!

 

[YDB95]

I simply didn't feel like spoon feeding you Congressional records for you to just ignore them when they reval that democrats do in fact LOVE the filibuster when they are the minority.

No, you didn't feel like admitting you can't back up your claim with even one example. No surprise there; we're all used to it.

You want to show just what a partisan boot licker you are? Go ahead...I love watching you pretend democrats NEVER used the filibuster.

Nice subtle moving of the goalposts there. I said "in the past half century", not "never".

Pretending MLK wanted skin color made most important especially over content of character is even better.

It would be if that were what I had said, anyway.

 

[LittleDixie]

The Republicans broke all “rules” and niceties with the Supreme Court

That's not how that played out. whole Merrick Garland thing was totally legit. Dick move, yeah, but politics ain't beanbag.

 

[GothTalk]

No, you didn't feel like admitting you can't back up your claim with even one example..

No, I saw the Congressional records, and don't care if you want to act an ignorant partisan tool.

The past half century, you're beyond delusional, it's been less than half a decade.

It's what you and the other woke loons say all the time...cry more about whitey and the evils of whitness.

 

[pecksniff]

Senator Warren on the filibuster: "A Rule That Has Its Roots In Racism."

 

[BidudeinWi]

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.

Without it, the Senate becomes the House of Representatives. If you don’t understand that, then you’re an uneducated dope!

 

[pecksniff]

Stevie Wonder doesn't like the filibuster either.

 

[YDB95]

Without it, the Senate becomes the House of Representatives. If you don’t understand that, then you’re an uneducated dope!

Nope. What differentiates the Senate from the House is that its members represent entire states. The only thing the filibuster changes is that it makes an already-undemocratic chamber even more undemocratic.

No, I saw the Congressional records, and don't care if you want to act an ignorant partisan tool.

Then it ought to be the easiest thing in the world for you to provide a few examples. Your excuses for refusing to do so aren't fooling anyone who doesn't desperately want to be fooled.

 

[BidudeinWi]

Nope. What differentiates the Senate from the House is that its members represent entire states. The only thing the filibuster changes is that it makes an already-undemocratic chamber even more undemocratic.




Then it ought to be the easiest thing in the world for you to provide a few examples. Your excuses for refusing to do so aren't fooling anyone who doesn't desperately want to be fooled.

“It’s members represent entire States”…….what? There are two chambers f Congress. In the House, the delegation from any State represents that State. The number of representatives is based on a States population. A simple majority passes legislation. The Senate is comprised of two Senators for each State regardless of population. Sixty % is needed to cut off debate in order to vote. Checks and balances wisely built into Congress. The sixty percent rule is to keep any one Party from over-stepping their power by slim margins. That differentiates the Senate from the House and the Senate is considered the upper chamber. Fuck are you stupid!

 

[pecksniff]

In light of the way the John Lewis Voting Rights Act just died, it is very clear that the filibuster needs to go.

 

[YDB95]

“It’s members represent entire States”…….what?

Senators represent entire states. House members don't, except for the ones from the least-populous states. Once again I don't see what's so hard to follow.

There are two chambers f Congress. In the House, the delegation from any State represents that State.

But in most cases, the individual members do not.

The Senate is comprised of two Senators for each State regardless of population. Sixty % is needed to cut off debate in order to vote. Checks and balances wisely built into Congress.

Nope. The filibuster was not "built in" to anything. It wasn't even theoretically possible until 1806, and it never actually happened until 1837. The Constitution doesn't actually call for 60% for anything (t does call for 67% for a few things, like expulsion of members or conviction in an impeachment trial), and it makes no mention whatsoever of filibusters.

The sixty percent rule is to keep any one Party from over-stepping their power by slim margins.

That's one reading. Another, equally reasonable reading is that it's to give the minority clout that it really shouldn't have. The Senate is already un-democratic to begin with inasmuch as California (population 39,237,836) and Wyoming (578,759) have the same number of votes. Why should 41% of its membership be able to prevent anything from ever getting done?

Either way, though, the Constitution says nothing about any "sixty percent rule".

Fuck are you stupid!

A well-reasoned, powerfully-argued post as always. Where would this room be without you?

 

[pecksniff]

A well-reasoned, powerfully-argued post as always. Where would this room be without you?

Just iggy it.

 

[YDB95]

Just iggy it.

There is exactly one reason why I don't put him on ignore: I've found he's a pretty good source for what the Fox News/Newsmax crowd will be talking about next week. Whatever ultra-right sources they get their "ideas" from, he seems to read them first.

 

[pecksniff]

In light of the way the John Lewis Voting Rights Act just died, it is very clear that the filibuster needs to go.

Nobody has contradicted this, and nobody honestly can.

 

[Cubantripod]

Nobody has contradicted this, and nobody honestly can.

50.1% of the country should not be able to run over the other 49.9%. If you can't get 10 senators from the other side to join you, your legislation isn't any good.

 

[YDB95]

50.1% of the country should not be able to run over the other 49.9%. If you can't get 10 senators from the other side to join you, your legislation isn't any good.

Faulty logic at best.

 

[BidudeinWi]

Senators represent entire states. House members don't, except for the ones from the least-populous states. Once again I don't see what's so hard to follow.



But in most cases, the individual members do not.



Nope. The filibuster was not "built in" to anything. It wasn't even theoretically possible until 1806, and it never actually happened until 1837. The Constitution doesn't actually call for 60% for anything (t does call for 67% for a few things, like expulsion of members or conviction in an impeachment trial), and it makes no mention whatsoever of filibusters.


That's one reading. Another, equally reasonable reading is that it's to give the minority clout that it really shouldn't have. The Senate is already un-democratic to begin with inasmuch as California (population 39,237,836) and Wyoming (578,759) have the same number of votes. Why should 41% of its membership be able to prevent anything from ever getting done?

Either way, though, the Constitution says nothing about any "sixty percent rule".



A well-reasoned, powerfully-argued post as always. Where would this room be without you?

Before the 17th Amendment, State Legislatures selected the Senators. Things change Snoopy! The 60% rule does EXACTLY what it was intended to do. Namely, prevent either Party with a slim majority from over-stepping their power, as a check on the House, force more moderate legislation and prevent wild swings in policy whenever power changes hands. It a tried, tested and proven rule!

If Dirty Hairy Reid (good riddance) hadn’t used it for Oblunder’s judicial nominees, you wouldn’t have seen Trump appoint the conservative justices he did. If the marxists eliminate the filibuster, they are going down a dangerous road.

 

[pecksniff]

That might apply to a direct democracy, but not a representative one. The British Parliament, which has never been hampered by institutional obstructionism (or even constitutional limits on its power), has never been an example of dangerous mob passions. And even among direct democracies, it really only applies to the face-to-face town meeting form, not to legislation by referendum.

This is important to keep in mind.

 

[pecksniff]

50.1% of the country should not be able to run over the other 49.9%.

50.1% should be able to win over 49.9%.

 

[YDB95]

The 60% rule does EXACTLY what it was intended to do. Namely, prevent either Party with a slim majority from over-stepping their power, as a check on the House, force more moderate legislation and prevent wild swings in policy whenever power changes hands. It a tried, tested and proven rule!

Perhaps, but that's not really what you said. You said it was "built in" to the Senate, and it wasn't.