Filibusters

[Korona 0]

The filibuster thing really confuses me, maybe someone can enlighten me?

Everyone is saying the healthcare thing is dead because of filibustering, but can't they just grind the filibuster down by forcing them all to stand up and actually carry out their eternal speeches? It may take a few days but noone can speak for ever. It seems dumb that 41 can veto 59 just through a threat.

[Torlek 0]

In the past you actually had to stand up and debate, no so anymore. Now the minority party simply has to register that it is filibustering the bill, thus essentially giving the minority party the ability to kill any bill by simply refusing to debate the subject. Obviously that's one thing that needs to change about the Senate. That and term limits for the legislative branch.

[IconOfEvi 0]

I suppose filibusters are A-OK though when Democrats use it

 

:ph34r:

[Rattuskid 0]

Korona, the Democrats have a marvelous ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. They are literally enjoying their highest numbers in congress for like 6 decades, and act like losing the Massachusetts is somehow a death knoll on everything. Truth is obstructionism is just annoying enough to derail everything, and grand agendas are usually the fuel for the BS in the first place.

 

So in short, yes they can wait it out, but the Republicans have vowed to filibuster this ad nauseum (they actually do take the floor and speak), and since the White House has basically said any bill at this point would be a welcome one right now, well that's just a timeline for the terro... er, GOP.

 

I suppose filibusters are A-OK though when Democrats use it

 

:ph34r:

 

Fuck you, the GOP sponsored referendum to kill the filibusters was only a few years ago. I kind of wish it had gone through though.

 

 

[Korona 0]

But filibustering is just a technicality, surely common sense overrides the letter of the law at some point? Haven't they defeated filibusters before by just removing all legislation from the senate floor?

It seems way different to me to stall legislation forcing people to chose between delays and more revision. It's good, it encourages appeasement and consensus. But for the minority party to be able to just flat out bar the elected majority from passing laws that they were elected to make seems downright un-democratic.

[dave1001 0]

Yes, it's easy to say that the minority shouldn't be allowed to impede that majority like that, but you should recall that the 'minority' party is the political representation of over 100 million individuals - that's a whole lotta pissed off people. The purpose of our government's structure is not to making passing laws easy, it's to make changing laws as obscenely difficult and painful as possible. This discourages rapid change, prevents any one group or ideology from dominating too easily, and keeps the government and nation stable while remaining reactive to changing circumstances. If we wanted an efficient law-making body we'd appoint a king - no time wasted in debate, only royal decree. And I would argue that the biggest mistakes made by this nation in the past decade have been the work of individuals (the executive), and not from the great gathering of idiots (congress) like you might expect.

Edited January 23, 2010 by dave1001

[IconOfEvi 0]

surely common sense overrides the letter of the law at some point

 

Whose sense. This is a matter of perspective. The law can't inviolate only when one desires it for the greater good.

 

And Rattus, the nuclear option has been done many times before. However, it tends to fray Congress. I don't see why the Democrats had a few filibusters during the reign of Dubya, and that was a good thing.

 

You have to make fair considerations. If it was okay for them to filibuster than, it is alright now. And you'll remember the Nuclear Option didn't go through this time.

 

I'm actually surprised that in all the schemes to stop Brown from getting to vote on time, no one mentioned it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT - on a side note, Brown offered his daughters up, mentioning how they're not taken. Seeing as how they're quite hot, both got deluged with date requests. Dammit.

 

Also, Glenn Beck can stuff it, this man is a legend. He has a sense of humor with his daughters, and has molded them in his image, therefore he has accomplished what all dads should do.

Edited January 23, 2010 by IconOfEvi

[Count von Phoib 0]

Yes, it's easy to say that the minority shouldn't be allowed to impede that majority like that, but you should recall that the 'minority' party is the political representation of over 100 million individuals - that's a whole lotta pissed off people.

And the filibuster would prevent the will of 150 million people being represented. Thats even more pissed off people.

[Rattuskid 0]

Nuclear Option

 

That's such a stupid fucking name for it.

[Korona 0]

We are talking about a house rule designed to let everyone have their say. It's not meant to allow debate to be used as a de-facto veto. It is an abuse of the rules to use it like that. It seems weird to me that such an absurd technicality is allowed to be used to block one of the central planks of the Dem's campaign, one of the core things Obama got elected to do.

 

Nuclear option does sound like a dumb way to describe the elected majority actually getting their way.

[IconOfEvi 0]

Yes, it's easy to say that the minority shouldn't be allowed to impede that majority like that, but you should recall that the 'minority' party is the political representation of over 100 million individuals - that's a whole lotta pissed off people.

And the filibuster would prevent the will of 150 million people being represented. Thats even more pissed off people.

Actually judging by current polls, he's well on his way to representing only a 1/3 of people. You have to remember a large chunk of people elected him on his word to heal the gap. Now that everyone has seen what a farce that was, the disapproval rate is becoming the fastest in our history.

 

Also I do not recall 17 and under's being able to vote.

 

When asked about if they hate the plan or not, most Americans by and large hate the plan.

 

Nuclear Option

 

That's such a stupid fucking name for it.

Yes it is, but I suppose it got that because once you pull, all bets are off. Its like how current WMDs are - when one side uses it, all strategies and tactics become legitimate for everyone.

[Rattuskid 0]

It's called that because it was some bullshit coined by Fox, and they make everything sound both retarded and fatalistic.

[IconOfEvi 0]

Sigh

[Count von Phoib 0]

Yes, it's easy to say that the minority shouldn't be allowed to impede that majority like that, but you should recall that the 'minority' party is the political representation of over 100 million individuals - that's a whole lotta pissed off people.

And the filibuster would prevent the will of 150 million people being represented. Thats even more pissed off people.

Actually judging by current polls, he's well on his way to representing only a 1/3 of people. You have to remember a large chunk of people elected him on his word to heal the gap. Now that everyone has seen what a farce that was, the disapproval rate is becoming the fastest in our history.

 

Also I do not recall 17 and under's being able to vote.

 

When asked about if they hate the plan or not, most Americans by and large hate the plan.

That's 60% compared to dave1001's 40%.

 

Direct democracy leads to a joke government. The current will of the people is not important. Only with the next election it is.

[IconOfEvi 0]

Here's the thing though. While Obama's personal approval ratings remain high, his policy ones are plummeting. You want to know why? Well for one, a lot of people like the man, but not his policy he is pursuing. And yes, some people voted for hope and change, and believed he would actually be the one to break through and transcend traditional politics. Sad to say, but thats the truth.

 

Also, lol. And I thought I was a communist. The current will of the people is not important, nice. :P

[Count von Phoib 0]

Well, sorry, but you can't rule by approval ratings. The man was elected president, he got the majory of the senate, let democracy do it's bloody work.

 

The system doesn't autofail if it doesn't comply with your opinion.

[Korona 0]

This isn't opinion about how well a politician's policies are working, it's prejudging him before he has even done anything. I think it's totally valid to expect a politician to listen if his laws sucked and made bad stuff happen, but people are saying stuff is bad before it has even happened. It's all based on unfounded fears. It's spurious to say the fear of change of a large minority should be allowed to stop politicians from trying to tackle the big problems of the day, that kind of yellow bellied foot dragging is un-American!

[dave1001 0]

It's spurious to say the fear of change of a large minority should be allowed to stop politicians from trying to tackle the big problems of the day, that kind of yellow bellied foot dragging is un-American!

Actually, just the opposite has been true for most of our history, excluding moments of crisis. Reform movements, especially on BIG things like civil (racial) rights, women's suffrage, labor rights, anti-trust/monopoly regulation, and food and drug safety all required decades of work to change the law.

[Korona 0]

Dude, it's a time of crisis now! The health system is broken beyond belief! Costs are getting more and more excessive every year and there's a quarter of all people now who have either insufficient cover or none at all. What does it take before it constitutes a crisis?

 

Gah the US government has always done what it wants: FDR took the country into WW2 without pussy opposition stopping him, Kennedy sent in the National Guard to enforce his civil rights agenda, Johnson had his war in Vietnam. Reagan "reformed" about a century of labour laws in a single term.

 

If you want a contemporary example, what about the patriot act? around 3k deaths is enough to make it ok for the government to spy on US citizens and torture them but somehow now healthcare reform is an evil act of "big government" and has to be blocked indefinatly to ensure due process and "the people" are listened to? What the hell man?

[Rattuskid 0]

Also, lol. And I thought I was a communist. The current will of the people is not important, nice. :P

 

Do you turn off your brain when it's convenient for you? Mob mentality is no way to run a nation. If it was everyone darker than a sheet of paper wouldn't be allowed to fly right now, the Senate wouldn't exist and the 2nd Amendment would be in the toilet the day after Columbine happened.

 

Actually, just the opposite has been true for most of our history, excluding moments of crisis. Reform movements, especially on BIG things like civil (racial) rights, women's suffrage, labor rights, anti-trust/monopoly regulation, and food and drug safety all required decades of work to change the law.

 

Agreed. Women's sufferage is an excellent example because it was founded in the early 1850s, and took a bit into the 20th century before getting approved. America is systemically anti-progressive. At times, that causes a lot of bullshit, but it also renders the nation a very stable base for families and businesses.

 

Dude, it's a time of crisis now! The health system is broken beyond belief! Costs are getting more and more excessive every year and there's a quarter of all people now who have either insufficient cover or none at all. What does it take before it constitutes a crisis?

 

Broken and too expensive are two different things. The Democrats are trying to paint this as a kind of social equity issue when it's an open secret it's all about the spiraling cost of maintaining the system when so many who require care are uninsured. People who have current healthcare are decidedly against a national plan because they see no benefits for themselves, on concessions, and for the most part may be right. Some of the uninsured (myself included) are scared to death of things like fines for not jumping aboard with the national plan, or worse for not jumping aboard with a private plan should the national one fail to come about. So instead we have a lot of dickwaving from both sides of the isle and will likely end up with a compromise that will hand pick the worst of what both sides have to offer.

 

I think trying to right the capsized economy would help the healthcare situation more at the moment by just allowing people to afford a policy, maybe combined with a few laws to ensure providers can't dick over people as much as they currently do.

 

 

[IconOfEvi 0]

Rattus, Im merely pointing out that if the shoe was on the other foot, we often don't see that.

[weston 0]

Also, lol. And I thought I was a communist. The current will of the people is not important, nice. :P

 

Do you turn off your brain when it's convenient for you? Mob mentality is no way to run a nation. If it was everyone darker than a sheet of paper wouldn't be allowed to fly right now, the Senate wouldn't exist and the 2nd Amendment would be in the toilet the day after Columbine happened.

 

Actually, just the opposite has been true for most of our history, excluding moments of crisis. Reform movements, especially on BIG things like civil (racial) rights, women's suffrage, labor rights, anti-trust/monopoly regulation, and food and drug safety all required decades of work to change the law.

 

Agreed. Women's sufferage is an excellent example because it was founded in the early 1850s, and took a bit into the 20th century before getting approved. America is systemically anti-progressive. At times, that causes a lot of bullshit, but it also renders the nation a very stable base for families and businesses.

 

Dude, it's a time of crisis now! The health system is broken beyond belief! Costs are getting more and more excessive every year and there's a quarter of all people now who have either insufficient cover or none at all. What does it take before it constitutes a crisis?

 

Broken and too expensive are two different things. The Democrats are trying to paint this as a kind of social equity issue when it's an open secret it's all about the spiraling cost of maintaining the system when so many who require care are uninsured. People who have current healthcare are decidedly against a national plan because they see no benefits for themselves, on concessions, and for the most part may be right. Some of the uninsured (myself included) are scared to death of things like fines for not jumping aboard with the national plan, or worse for not jumping aboard with a private plan should the national one fail to come about. So instead we have a lot of dickwaving from both sides of the isle and will likely end up with a compromise that will hand pick the worst of what both sides have to offer.

 

I think trying to right the capsized economy would help the healthcare situation more at the moment by just allowing people to afford a policy, maybe combined with a few laws to ensure providers can't dick over people as much as they currently do.

 

 

[Korona 0]

When asked about if they hate the plan or not, most Americans by and large hate the plan.

 

Which Americans, and by who asking? Cos I can produce surveys by left wing groups that show the majority of Americans support the ideal of universal health care and nationalised healthcare and whatever else you want to swing as being "unamerican".

Statistics are easy to manipulate. Consider the difference between

"Are you happy with the current plan?"

and

"Given the choice, would you rather see the current senate plan passed, or continuation of the status quo?"

They seem similar but they would give wildly different results.

The bottom line is that Obama was clearly stating healthcare reform as a central plank of his election platform and people voted him in. He should be able to count on a senate that can actually pass him laws.

 

Now if his reforms are a mess, great vote his failed ass out, that's democracy in action, but to try and make out that blocking democracy from functioning is some noble defence of the "will of the people" is just retarded. It's in noone's interest to let things continue as they are, people should be able to try and fix the problem.

[hawk10314 0]

The whole idea of the US government is that there are many checks and balances. The filibuster is just another one of those check-points. The founders understood that government shouldn't change lightly or flow with what was popular at a time, and that the minority would be protected against the majority. They understood that you can't just have have a simple majority because that means that 51% would always trump the other 49% but yet they knew that you can't just have a unanimous consent on everything otherwise NOTHING would get done. The fillibuster is, in a nutshell, a tool used by the minority of a debate to protect itself from the majority. However, in times of actual crisis, such as 9-11 it is usualy unanimous consent for dealing with security and things of that nature.

 

The reason why there is no coopoeration between the parties is simple. Being that they do have complete opostie philosophies, Republicans might agree with 4/10 things of the health care bill but because those things aren't seperated into seperate bills and the Democrats thought that they would hold the 60 seats to over-ride a fillibuster it bit them in the ass when the republicans got 41 votes. If they make seperate bills there are things that both parties would most likely agree on not the whole of the Republican party but some center memebers willing to vote on the issue to get it passed. In the end the arrogance of the democrats lead to their undoing.

 

EDIT: One more thing, they can debate forever, it is not performed by one person. The party as a whole or whoever the 41 members are who want to fillibuster rotate. And senators don't have to be present for this. For instance, you can just have one guy talking to the clerk for an hour, another member comes and and all he has to do is say "I yeild the floor to the senator of NJ" at which point he picks up. As long as you don't yield to the opposing side it goes on. And unlike the house wich is much larger and speaking rules and times are agreed upon before debates the Senate doesn't need to abide by any set of debating rules, they have the abilitiy to debate and diliberate a bill until they get it right or it dies. Also, at any time you can request to over-ride it but it can only happen once per debate and you need the 60 to do it.

Edited February 3, 2010 by hawk10314

[Korona 0]

You think they could actually stand up and talk in the house indefinably? Wouldn't that look amazingly childish to the voters? I can't think that they could keep it up without looking like a bunch of cunts.