TVoffBrainOn
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2007
- Messages
- 313
I'm curious how the Right feels about this Senate procedure. It's not in the Constitution. It's basically an obstructionist tool that both parties have abused over the last few decades when they are not the party in power. However, Republicans have taken that abuse to a new level.
I know the conservatives on this board are happy to have the procedure in place to fight against bills that they are ideologically opposed to. I completely understand that. I'm asking to debate the Filibuster on constitutional terms, and on a level of competent Gov't. Has the notion of "endless debate" gone too far? Should a super majority in the Senate be necessary to pass the legislation of the party in power? As the Republican party withdraws further to the right, doesn't the Filibuster essentially make passing the legislation of the party mandated by the people nearly impossible? Is this American?
The Republicans used the filibuster more times in 91-92 then it was used in the entire 19th century. Isn't that a little absurd? Now they've more then doubled it's usage in the last year alone.
The filibuster really only came into being as a mistake (A.Burr). Are we really so out of touch that we can actually have a rule to prevent the passage of legislation based on the idea that "any Senator should have the right to speak on any issue for as long as necessary". Now we are at a point where readings from the phone book led to just simply accepting that some Senator would speak for 24 hours about nothing, so 60 votes is needed for passing legislation in a congressional body where the rules say only 51 votes are needed.
I think it's an absurd mockery of our system of government.
Since the Democrats regained control of the Senate, Republicans have abused the filibuster rule like never before. Until 1970, no session of Congress had more than ten votes on cloture to end a filibuster. Until 2007, the record was 58. But since Democrats regained control of the Senate, filibusters have skyrocketed. The last session had a new record of 112.
I know the conservatives on this board are happy to have the procedure in place to fight against bills that they are ideologically opposed to. I completely understand that. I'm asking to debate the Filibuster on constitutional terms, and on a level of competent Gov't. Has the notion of "endless debate" gone too far? Should a super majority in the Senate be necessary to pass the legislation of the party in power? As the Republican party withdraws further to the right, doesn't the Filibuster essentially make passing the legislation of the party mandated by the people nearly impossible? Is this American?
The Republicans used the filibuster more times in 91-92 then it was used in the entire 19th century. Isn't that a little absurd? Now they've more then doubled it's usage in the last year alone.
The filibuster really only came into being as a mistake (A.Burr). Are we really so out of touch that we can actually have a rule to prevent the passage of legislation based on the idea that "any Senator should have the right to speak on any issue for as long as necessary". Now we are at a point where readings from the phone book led to just simply accepting that some Senator would speak for 24 hours about nothing, so 60 votes is needed for passing legislation in a congressional body where the rules say only 51 votes are needed.
I think it's an absurd mockery of our system of government.