PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues The Filibuster


Direckshun
02-23-2011, 09:51 PM
I wanted to post for a moment on the federal filibuster.

I think, under the endurance of the Obama administration thus far, I've come to respect it. I think it's still excessive to allow somebody to filibuster without having to show up (and for that we all owe Bernie Sanders a round of applause for showing us how to do it right...), but I nonetheless think it's the one tool we have in Congress to keep a slight majority from steamrolling a minority.

I think Obama could have achieved much more without a filibuster being in place. No rational person can deny this.

But the way this country works, Republicans will have a slight majority in both houses before long, and will just pass whatever they want with ease. Then Democrats get power back, and they do the same. And in all likelihood, we end up with a completely different legality to everything every 10 years, which is assinine.

The filibuster does seem to be a crucial tool in combatting that. It's a tool of moderation.

Fire away.

alnorth
02-23-2011, 10:05 PM
I've spent far more calories in prior threads about the filibuster. Maybe I'll re-write some of that junk on this thread later if it takes off.

The filibuster is crap. Its crap when it works in my favor, and it sure as hell is crap when it works against my favor. The founding fathers did not intend for the filibuster to ever exist, it was twisted far out of context from the horse and buggy days when senators needed to stall for other senators to ride to the capital. No one ever expected a senate super-majority requirement until someone read the rules carefully and realized they could exploit them.

The minority should have their say, but eventually, the majority should have their way. Period, end of discussion. I'll go even farther than that. As far as I'm concerned, the filibuster does not exist in any solid sense today. At ANY TIME a majority of senators can get rid of the filibuster. Don't bother pulling out any crap about rules only being changable at the beginning of a congress, THAT rule saying the rule cant be changed in the middle of a congress can also be changed by a simple majority.

So, if a senator ever comes up to you and says "sorry, most of us wanted to pass that law you wanted, but we were filibustered", your response should be "bullcrap, you did not want to pass it badly enough, so as far as I'm concerned you allowed it to die because you are deluding yourself into thinking the other party will always respect the filibuster if your party loses an election."

Someday some party, either the GOP or the Dems, will decide to throw out the filibuster. When they do, the other party will feel like a bunch of retards for respecting something that was never intended nor constitutionally mandated.

If you disagree and think a filibuster should exist, then pass a damned constitutional amendment. Until then, it doesn't really exist, unless a majority of senators says it exists. After any election there's always the possibility that a majority of senators will decide they dont like it, so you are a fool if you rely on the filibuster for anything.

healthpellets
02-23-2011, 10:05 PM
and forget everything i wrote as alnorth kindly and swiftly cleared up my questions. nice work, sir.

chiefsnorth
02-23-2011, 10:24 PM
I tend to think that anything which slows down the rate at which congress is screwing things up is a good thing.