will reid change the senate rules regarding filbusters

will reid change the senate rules regarding filibusters

  • Total voters
    6
  • Poll closed .
The filibuster is in the Senate Rules and it's designed to extend debate by Senators before a final vote.

If 16 Senators sign a cloture petition, the Senate needs 60 votes to end debate.

While still a Senator, Barack Obama voted to filibuster the nomination of Sam Alito to the Supreme Court.

On two occasions, then-Senator Barack Obama also filibustered the nomination of John Bolton to be U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.

"Everyone in this chamber knows that if the majority chooses to end the filibuster, if they choose to change the rules and put an end to democratic debate, then the fighting and the bitterness and the gridlock will only get worse....If the right of free and open debate is taken away from the minority party, then millions of Americans who ask us to be their voice if fear that the already partisan atmosphere in Washington will get be poisoned to the point that we will not be able to agree on anything and doesn’t serve anybody’s best interest, and it certainly isn’t what the Patriots who founded this democracy had in mind."

Barack Obama said this on April 13, 2005


http://www.senate.gov/reference/reference_index_subjects/Cloture_vrd.htm
 
Some Democrats don't agree with the current Senate rules.

"...Frustrated by regular filibusters and other procedural blockades, Senate Democrats are urging their leadership to negotiate with Republicans to change the rules that govern how the Senate does business.

The Democrats would leave intact the ability of the minority party to filibuster legislation and nominations, meaning that in most cases it would still take 60 votes to get anything done in the Senate. But they want to require senators to be on the floor if they intend to try to debate a bill to death and would make other changes to streamline the Senate’s operations, including ending the practice of secret “holds” by a single senator on legislation or nominees.

Republicans are likely to resist, and should no compromise be found, some Democrats are prepared to propose their own package of rules changes on the first day of the session. Doing so could touch off a bitter floor fight, escalate the already high partisan tensions in the chamber and hinder President Obama’s ability to advance legislation.

In a letter to Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, Democratic senators expressed “strong sentiment” for ending what they see as Republican misuse of Senate process in recent years..."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/25/us/politics/25rules.html?src=twrhp
 
Ironically, it seems to be the lefties that bitch and whine about filibusters the most....
even when they have 60 votes on their side.....

but I agree, there should be some changes made in the rules.....
I particularly don't like to see amendments or additions to a bill that don't have a damn thing to do with the purpose of the bill.....
Every request for spending especially, should be presented and stand on its own vote....

secret “holds” by a single senator on legislation or nominees is a ridiculous practice.
 
Last edited:
bravo said:
Ironically, it seems to be the lefties that bitch and whine about filibusters the most....
even when they have 60 votes on their side.....

but I agree, there should be some changes made in the rules.....
I particularly don't like to see amendments or additions to a bill that don't have a damn thing to do with the purpose of the bill.....
Every request for spending especially, should be presented and stand on its own vote....

secret “holds” by a single senator on legislation or nominees is a ridiculous practice.
Click to expand...

while i agree with most of your post, what ever happened to majority votes - the party of no and their record of filibusters
 
Schadenfreude said:
while i agree with most of your post, what ever happened to majority votes - the party of no and their record of filibusters
Click to expand...

"The party of No" is relative. Come on pops, you're old enough to remember the late 60's and early 80's.

While the divisiveness and animosity is scaled pretty high, its not unprecedented.

Surely pop, you realize this.
 
The rules don't change the amount required for cloture, it just requires a live filibuster rather than the voodoo filibusters we have now.
 
Beefy said:
"The party of No" is relative. Come on pops, you're old enough to remember the late 60's and early 80's.

While the divisiveness and animosity is scaled pretty high, its not unprecedented.

Surely pop, you realize this.
Click to expand...

the extent is unprecedented
 
Woodrow Wilson wrote extensively as an academic in defense of the filibuster. Then he became president. I imagine Obama has gone down the same road of experience as did Wilson.
 
Threedee said:
Woodrow Wilson wrote extensively as an academic in defense of the filibuster. Then he became president. I imagine Obama has gone down the same road of experience as did Wilson.
Click to expand...

What Wilson and Obama have in common is they both received the Nobel prize on the basis of things they said but which never came to fruition.

A better option would have been/is to strike them firmly in the face with a sturdy baseball bat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top