PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Kos starts campaign to end the filibuster


Taco John
08-19-2010, 12:15 PM
Today we're launching a campaign to end the filibuster. Join this campaign by clicking the link below and signing the petition that appears:

Ending the filibuster starts here
Here's how signing the petition makes a difference.

We'll deliver the petition to every Democratic nominee for Senate and every returning Democratic Senator. When we do, we'll get them on record about whether they agree that the rules of the Senate can, and should, be changed with a simple majority vote on the first day of Congress next year.
Once 51 returning and potential Senators have come out in support, we'll have proven that changing Senate rules is possible with a simple majority vote.

Sign the petition, prove change is possible

Entrenched power players like Joe Lieberman, Max Baucus, Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu have all depended on the filibuster to enable Republican obstructionism and water down progressive legislation. Corporate interests have used it to protect themselves by purchasing a few small state Senators on the cheap.

There's no bigger decision Senate Democrats will make next year. The Senate is where good legislation goes to die. Democrats can either change a system that allows a tiny unaccountable minority to thwart the will of the country, or they can continue being part of the problem.

Sign the petition, join the campaign

Let's get started,
Markos Moulitsas
Founder, Daily Kos

Taco John
08-19-2010, 12:15 PM
What a moron.

blaise
08-19-2010, 12:16 PM
Petitions are lame.

mlyonsd
08-19-2010, 12:17 PM
That's what you get from the left. A bunch of whining cry babies that can't stand the idea of not getting their way.

BucEyedPea
08-19-2010, 12:19 PM
LAME

healthpellets
08-19-2010, 12:55 PM
Couldn't they have changed the filibuster rule at the beginning of the session if they wanted to? I thought that was one of the rules that could be altered.

HonestChieffan
08-19-2010, 01:27 PM
Bet Diwreck was first in line

donkhater
08-19-2010, 01:46 PM
Can't wait when the Republicans overtake the Senate and they pull a Ted Kennedy.

healthpellets
08-19-2010, 02:13 PM
Can't wait when the Republicans overtake the Senate and they pull a Ted Kennedy.

by getting drunk, driving off a bridge, and killing a poor girl?

alnorth
08-19-2010, 05:04 PM
Couldn't they have changed the filibuster rule at the beginning of the session if they wanted to? I thought that was one of the rules that could be altered.

The rules arguably can be changed at any time, even in the middle of a session. A simple majority can change the rule that says rules during the middle of a session can only be changed with a super-majority, by a simple majority, then they can go about doing what they want.

Any time any party, democrat or republican, whines and cries about not getting what they want because of a filibuster, I call bullshit. I have no sympathy at all for someone not overcoming a filibuster because it only exists at the whims of a majority. Any time a bill is filibustered to death, that only proves the majority may have sort of wanted something, but they just didn't want it badly enough.

I agree with the goal of kos, if not the obvious transparent motive driving it.

Taco John
08-19-2010, 05:26 PM
If I'm not mistaken, the Democrats currently have the largest majority in congress than any political party has had since the 1970's. All they're looking for, apparently, is political cover.

I neither agree with the goal, and certainly not their motives. Government has managed to grow for the last 50 years despite the filibuster.

BigOlChiefsfan
08-19-2010, 11:22 PM
I don't need a loan, so why would I want a bunch of Kosigners?

KCTitus
08-20-2010, 12:02 AM
That's what you get from the left. A bunch of whining cry babies that can't stand the idea of not getting their way.

LOL...fortunately for these limp dicks, if conservatives get control, they wont experience any real soft tyranny like their brethren have attempted to foist on the rest of us.

Taco John
08-20-2010, 01:56 AM
LOL...fortunately for these limp dicks, if conservatives get control, they wont experience any real soft tyranny like their brethren have attempted to foist on the rest of us.


In fairness, they feel like someone investing in a network and providing them internet service and then turn around and ask them to pay for it is a form of tyranny.

RaiderH8r
08-20-2010, 08:44 AM
In fairness, they feel like someone investing in a network and providing them internet service and then turn around and ask them to pay for it is a form of tyranny.

In fairness, me paying for Comcast to come to my house to fix their shit that is messed up is a form of WTF'ery. While my philosophical allegiances certainly understand and agree with what you're saying my real world experience precludes me from drumming up a lot of sympathy for ISP and cable providers (which are usually one and the same).

That said, Markos and anybody else suggesting to end the filibuster is flat wrong and does not understand the purpose and function of the Senate. The Senate, despite being elected by the public, is a body to represent the States, which is why every state has....say it with me now....equal representation. Because, in the eyes of the founders and states with small populations, they recognized that majority rule would subject them to the tyranny of population centers. The Senate is a bulwark against secession and ensures that all states and all people have a platform of equality to have their say.

As the saying goes, "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting what to have for dinner, liberty is a well armed sheep contesting the vote." In lieu of armed conflict I give you the Senate.

alnorth
08-20-2010, 08:55 AM
I neither agree with the goal, and certainly not their motives. Government has managed to grow for the last 50 years despite the filibuster.

The filibuster has no protection under the constitution. It only exists because a bunch of doddering old men have convinced themselves that it is a good idea. As soon as 51 senators decide to get rid of the filibuster, it is gone, and I'm pretty confident there will be no outrage or blowback from the people because the voters generally dont care about arcane senate procedures.

If you like the idea of a filibuster, then we should have a constitutional amendment ensuring that a supermajority is needed to pass laws in the senate.

As it is, if a majority of politicians in the senate basically feel the same as you, fail to pass what they want, and you are fine with it because "oh well, its too bad, but we cant get rid of the filibuster because it might be needed to stop something someday", thats sort of a dangerous idea to rely on. Someday, probably during our lifetimes, the filibuster will be tossed out or significantly weakened, preferrably as soon as the GOP regains both houses of congress.

alnorth
08-20-2010, 08:59 AM
That said, Markos and anybody else suggesting to end the filibuster is flat wrong and does not understand the purpose and function of the Senate. The Senate, despite being elected by the public, is a body to represent the States, which is why every state has....say it with me now....equal representation. Because, in the eyes of the founders and states with small populations, they recognized that majority rule would subject them to the tyranny of population centers. The Senate is a bulwark against secession and ensures that all states and all people have a platform of equality to have their say.

The founding fathers did not really intend for the filibuster to even exist, much less evolve as it has.

The filibuster was created when it took days or weeks to get around by horse or train. Say a party has a lot of senators in washington, there is no real plan to do much this week but they betray everyone by trying to ram bills through while the majority is back home or gathered in Boston or something. The filibuster was intended to stall and delay things while everyone hurried back to Washington.

Thats it, thats the history of the glorious filibuster. A big "whoa, wait a minute guys, everyone isn't here yet!" There is nothing noble about it, whatsoever.

alnorth
08-20-2010, 11:17 AM
The founding fathers did not really intend for the filibuster to even exist, much less evolve as it has.

The filibuster was created when it took days or weeks to get around by horse or train. Say a party has a lot of senators in washington, there is no real plan to do much this week but they betray everyone by trying to ram bills through while the majority is back home or gathered in Boston or something. The filibuster was intended to stall and delay things while everyone hurried back to Washington.

Thats it, thats the history of the glorious filibuster. A big "whoa, wait a minute guys, everyone isn't here yet!" There is nothing noble about it, whatsoever.

Oops, I need to correct this, I was thinking of something else. (the "hold", another silly rule which has been abused and should be done away with)

The filibuster was unintentionally created purely by accident by Aaron Burr about 10 or 15 years after the senate was created, again with no constitutional protections or any intention from the founding fathers to work this way.

The house and senate started with basically the same rulebook, and the senate, still feeling their way around the rules in this brand-new legislative body, was thinking the rules were too complicated and wanted to simplify things. Aaron Burr thought the rule which "moves to vote on the previous question" (or something like that) was a useless rule that served no purpose except to make the rules more complicated and confusing. He proposed getting rid of that rule and the rest of the senate agreed, while the house kept their version of that rule. No one realized this accidentally cut off the ability to limit debate, and no one really seemed to notice or take advantage of this loophole for another generation. Later, long after the senate rulebook was "simplified", the senators realized what they had done 30 or 40 years later.

None of this "protecting the rights of the minority" happy horsecrap, none of this "this is what our constitution called for" nonsense, the filibuster was created by accident, and can be gotten rid of at any time by a majority, if they ever really wanted to. The founding fathers intended the senate to behave pretty much like the house, with the only difference being equal representation for each state, and for the first couple generations of our nation's history, the senate basically did behave like the house.

donkhater
08-20-2010, 11:31 AM
by getting drunk, driving off a bridge, and killing a poor girl?

No, but close. By arguing one way when Dems are in control and completely opposite when Republicans have the majority.

When Romney was governor he moved to have the law changed that a special election must be had to appoint replacement senators mid-term.

When he became ill and it was apparent that he was going to kick the bucket, he felt that the governor (which was now a democrat) should have the power to appoint his replacement.

donkhater
08-20-2010, 11:34 AM
It SHOULD be hard to pass laws. The whole idea of a government by, of and for the people is so elitists don't go dictator on all of us.

The complaint that Congress isn't doing enough is ridiculous. What they actually should do more of is kill laws currently on the books instread of creating loopholes and clauses for the massive ones that do exist.

Hydrae
08-20-2010, 01:10 PM
It SHOULD be hard to pass laws. The whole idea of a government by, of and for the people is so elitists don't go dictator on all of us.

The complaint that Congress isn't doing enough is ridiculous. What they actually should do more of is kill laws currently on the books instread of creating loopholes and clauses for the massive ones that do exist.

Reppity rep rep

RaiderH8r
08-20-2010, 02:29 PM
The founding fathers did not really intend for the filibuster to even exist, much less evolve as it has.

The filibuster was created when it took days or weeks to get around by horse or train. Say a party has a lot of senators in washington, there is no real plan to do much this week but they betray everyone by trying to ram bills through while the majority is back home or gathered in Boston or something. The filibuster was intended to stall and delay things while everyone hurried back to Washington.

Thats it, thats the history of the glorious filibuster. A big "whoa, wait a minute guys, everyone isn't here yet!" There is nothing noble about it, whatsoever.

The founding fathers did intend for Senators to be elected by state legislators and the filibuster is a useful bulwark against tyranny.

The fact that this Senate is required to muster 60 votes almost every time speaks more to their inability to govern and work bills than it does about the minority party. The D's had their majority and were all set to run roughshod on the place, as is their right, but they forgot a little thing called procedure. Now, if Markos wants to get rid of the filibuster I'd be curious to see what his comments were when Republicans flirted with the "Nuclear Option" because I remember the Chuck Schumer's of the world having a problem with that. The fact that nobody has done away with the filibuster speaks to its tremendous value and appeal to those whose job it is to actually work in the Senate.

The "whoa wait a minute guys..." is called a quorum call and can be executed at any time the floor is open.

The filibuster is not constitutionally guaranteed but freedom of speech is and if they want to essentially shove a sock in a Senator's mouth they damn well justifies getting a supermajority to do it. This shit happens all the time, the majority party is frustrated that they can't cram their bullshit down the minority party's throat and hates the filibuster, until they're in the minority then it is a critical component to effective governance. I have always maintained the filibuster is a critical piece of governance. Christ, have you seen how this country gets all up its ass over American Idol? These retards need a set of brakes on the cart otherwise we'll all be f'd like a stray dog in Chinatown.

Hydrae
08-20-2010, 02:35 PM
The founding fathers did intend for Senators to be elected by state legislators and the filibuster is a useful bulwark against tyranny.

The fact that this Senate is required to muster 60 votes almost every time speaks more to their inability to govern and work bills than it does about the minority party. The D's had their majority and were all set to run roughshod on the place, as is their right, but they forgot a little thing called procedure. Now, if Markos wants to get rid of the filibuster I'd be curious to see what his comments were when Republicans flirted with the "Nuclear Option" because I remember the Chuck Schumer's of the world having a problem with that. The fact that nobody has done away with the filibuster speaks to its tremendous value and appeal to those whose job it is to actually work in the Senate.

The "whoa wait a minute guys..." is called a quorum call and can be executed at any time the floor is open.

The filibuster is not constitutionally guaranteed but freedom of speech is and if they want to essentially shove a sock in a Senator's mouth they damn well justifies getting a supermajority to do it. This shit happens all the time, the majority party is frustrated that they can't cram their bullshit down the minority party's throat and hates the filibuster, until they're in the minority then it is a critical component to effective governance. I have always maintained the filibuster is a critical piece of governance. Christ, have you seen how this country gets all up its ass over American Idol? These retards need a set of brakes on the cart otherwise we'll all be f'd like a stray dog in Chinatown.



I think they eat the dogs not, you know... ;) ;)

Pitt Gorilla
08-20-2010, 08:46 PM
That's what you get from the left. A bunch of whining cry babies that can't stand the idea of not getting their way.The anti-Mosque people are "from the left?" :spock:

RaiderH8r
08-21-2010, 11:22 AM
I think they eat the dogs not, you know... ;) ;)

I know and it is with the menu in mind that I make that comment. And being on the menu running stray around chinatown....yeah, yer f'd.

Garcia Bronco
08-23-2010, 09:20 AM
It SHOULD be hard to pass laws. The whole idea of a government by, of and for the people is so elitists don't go dictator on all of us.

The complaint that Congress isn't doing enough is ridiculous. What they actually should do more of is kill laws currently on the books instread of creating loopholes and clauses for the massive ones that do exist.

This. Many could stand to learn at the feet of donkhater....except his donkhater stance on the whole NFL thing. He's wrong there, but about the things that matter? He's right.

BigChiefFan
08-23-2010, 10:31 AM
Oops, I need to correct this, I was thinking of something else. (the "hold", another silly rule which has been abused and should be done away with)

The filibuster was unintentionally created purely by accident by Aaron Burr about 10 or 15 years after the senate was created, again with no constitutional protections or any intention from the founding fathers to work this way.

The house and senate started with basically the same rulebook, and the senate, still feeling their way around the rules in this brand-new legislative body, was thinking the rules were too complicated and wanted to simplify things. Aaron Burr thought the rule which "moves to vote on the previous question" (or something like that) was a useless rule that served no purpose except to make the rules more complicated and confusing. He proposed getting rid of that rule and the rest of the senate agreed, while the house kept their version of that rule. No one realized this accidentally cut off the ability to limit debate, and no one really seemed to notice or take advantage of this loophole for another generation. Later, long after the senate rulebook was "simplified", the senators realized what they had done 30 or 40 years later.

None of this "protecting the rights of the minority" happy horsecrap, none of this "this is what our constitution called for" nonsense, the filibuster was created by accident, and can be gotten rid of at any time by a majority, if they ever really wanted to. The founding fathers intended the senate to behave pretty much like the house, with the only difference being equal representation for each state, and for the first couple generations of our nation's history, the senate basically did behave like the house.

You might want to watch Mr. Smith Goes To Washington, again. The Filibuster is an intrical part of our congress and assures , we the people, some semblence of control.

alnorth
08-23-2010, 11:32 AM
You might want to watch Mr. Smith Goes To Washington, again. The Filibuster is an intrical part of our congress and assures , we the people, some semblence of control.

The filibuster is a steaming pile of crap that was never intended to exist by our founding fathers, and Shoeless Joe helped throw the world series.

Silly feel-good movies from Hollywood like Mr. Smith Goes to Washington and Field of Dreams does not change the facts.