The Need for Filibuster Reform

American sheeple???????????????? maybe we should just let Nancy and Harry elect who they want to be in power?? would that work for ya??

Yep, sheeple. As in, people who watch FOX and CNN and MSNBC and make decisions based on what they're told by people with either a) a vested interest in generating controversy to gain viewers for advertising money or b) a vested interest in generating controversy and presenting one side of things to garner votes.

If people used their brains instead of thinking precisely what they're told to think I wouldn't call them sheeple.

lol OK...Do you include npr, John Stewart show, david Letterman, Leno..or is it just exlcusivly the three you mentioned?

Nothing about the filibuster stops tyranny of the majority since it can be overturned by an overwhelming majority.

The Supreme Court and the Constitution prevent that, and they're the only ones that really can.

ya your right... the republicans only ended slavery, enacted Civil Rights. I think your brush is very broad. Maybe we could say "SOME" republicans????

Get your history right! LBJ enated civil rights with a democratic congress the vote was 71 yea 29 nay and in the next congressional elections the democrats lost 50 seats and the south has never been democratic since then.
Republican President Linclon abollished slavery but that was an entirely different republican party than even fifty years later. Many republicans didn't want Linclon to do it either.
get history right if your going to use it in a thread

Vote of the Civil rights bill:

The original House version:[9]

Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
Cloture in the Senate:[10]

Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%-34%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
The Senate version:[9]

Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[9]

Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

Our country has not been in such bad shape since the great depression so i think stalling by the Republicans is killing us off slowly. Nothing is getting done that needs to be done.

Ideally, yes, I'd still get rid of the filibuster.

But your premise is faulty since no one stands on structural idealism when their political ideology is at stake.

If a system sucks you fix it, but if it's broken and that's advantageous to you and you're working on limited time then of course you wouldn't. You're not above that either.

i wondered how long it would take you and nettle to discover internet cafes, jammer.

with all due respect, i think some of what the governement does really screws things up. The phrase unintended consequences comes to mind. As the Impetus of this post is health care does it mean anything that the majority of america does not agree, and maybe the filibuster is the majorities voice?

"But your premise is faulty since no one stands on structural idealism when their political ideology is at stake"

isn't that what a filibuster does? case in point Senator Bunning enacted a single person filibuster for his belief that if we are going to extend unemployment we need to pay for it now, not add it to our debt. He is on the record as stating he does want to extend benifits, but that adding to our deficit is not an option.

Sure, but I'm not sure what you're trying to illustrate with that.

I disagree with the filibuster -because- it allows one senator to make a political grandstand, I could care less if it was for good or bad reasons. Although, in my opinion, the Senator from Kentucky was full of crap.

In the middle of the greatest recession since the great depression, you don't worry about 10 billion dollars to the Federal Budget. That's like cutting off your heating bill in the middle of the coldest winter in decades in a flimsy house while you're spending $10,000 a month gambling.

Very good! Rachel would be proud of you.

because the dems didn't think ideological differences were enough to completely stop the government in its tracks, just look at the historical use of the filibuster...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cloture_Voting,_U.S._Senate,_1947_to_2008.jpg

i'm all for filibustering! means government can't grow as quickly as it wants to with the other party holding down the other's massive spending, i just wish the dems would grow a spine once in a while

Because the Republicans have a strict reign over their membership and vote collectively, never out of party lines, even if they disagree.

Pretty much all you need to do to be a Democrat is to not be a Republican. There are Democrats who ideologically are Republicans who are part of the supposed super-majority.

i already said that i believe in pure democracy and majority rule, so your claim that this is somehow a partisan issue is very misguided.

the point i'm trying to make isn't that the minority doesn't need to be protected from the alleged "tyranny of the majority" but rather the minority needs to stop claiming that they speak for all people when they claim that "the american people have rejected this bill." what american people? even if 100% of their constituents reject this bill, that still only represents less than 40% of the american public. not to mention that it's possible to have a majority of senators without having a majority of the population represented...

people love to point out the outliers of civil rights legislation to prove their point that the minority needs to be protected from the "tyranny of the majority", but that is a human rights issue that should never even need to be held to a vote because they are inalienable, inherent, negative-rights (rights that an individual has which the government doesn't have the ability legislate). for all other positive-rights (i.e. those that are provided by government as a condition of citizenship) , i believe in the ability of the people to self-govern.

to say otherwise is to not understand our form of government

Our form of Government is not about Self Government. It is the beginning of a Collectivist form of Government. Of course we have the ABILITY, but do we have the CAPACITY? You act as if Negative Rights are just a given. How stupid of the Government to have even bothered protecting the Minority then, since their protection is inherent in nature.

There is no such thing as a right GRANTED by government if you believe in Natural Rights. The government can only do ONE thing, RESTRICT Rights.

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - George Washington

i didn't act like negative rights are a given, the founders did:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

the idea that the government can only restrict rights is your opinion and not reality. haven't we agreed that having access to police and fire departments a perfect example of the government providing a right to it's citizens? isn't the government providing a military a form of providing a right? there are certain areas of government, called the commons, that the government, i.e. We the People, have agreed affect us all and are best provided to its citizens through the collective action known as government.

and be careful when you quote the founders referring to government, because i'm sure if you were to do a little digging, that quote from Washington was in reference to non-democratic/non-republic forms of government...

All men are created equal, unless they are black, or women, actually unless they are White, Male Property Owners. Those were the only people afforded protection under the law when this country was founded.

Fire, Police, and Military are not rights, they are priveleges that the government provides..for a FEE.

and we can thank the progressive movement for expanding the founders vision to everyone

we aren't a pure democracy and we aren't a pure republic. we are a constitutionally limited, democratic republic.

I was waiting for somebody to get it right! Thanks.

Posting the abomination that is Zelda CDI is not an excuse for not having a rational rebuttal.

You basically just conceded my point because it scares you. My proposal is neither unprecedented nor radical, since the vast majority of representative governments on this planet operate that way and with far more efficiency and loyalty to their people.

LMAO Take care of the minority? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

If it were only so. The minority (income earners) are paying for the majority (sect.8, food stamps etc.)

The filibuster was put in place specifically to protect the minority from mob rule and needs to stay in place.

It is absolutely mind boggling to me the hyprocrasy of the Dems who went absolutely BERZERK when the REPs threatened to use this for Bush judicial nominees and now are apologists for the exact same tactic.

You think income earners are in the minority and welfare recipients are in the majority?!

I have heard figures that upwards of 50% of the American ppl receive a check from the govt in one form or another not specifically "welfare" rather that, govt studies, farm subsidies,SS, Medicare..... And I know that 20% of Americans pay 80% of the taxes and the bottom 50% pay 3%.

You stated that "The minority (income earners) are paying for the majority (sect.8, food stamps etc.) " That is beyond distortion, that is called a lie. When called on it, you now throw out "I've heard figures as high as 50%..." by including SS and Medicare.

1. As high as 50% is not a majority
2. I do not agree that Social Security and Medicare recipients are getting a free ride from the system and should not be included in your distorted statistic.
3. Since when did the wealthy stop collecting SS, farm susbsidies and stop benefiting from Medicare? You might as well inflate that figure higher than 50%.

Not mention of course that most of these recipients have for years been contributing to social security. Hell let me see my mother who was a personnel manager for over 20 years and fully employed for most of her adult life died at age 56 from cancer never received one dime from the medicare or social security. Let me see my father had his own security company and worked all his life died at age 58 and never received a dime form social security. My sister who died last august at the ripe old age of 51, worked most of her life and never received a dime from social security. Just these three people had put hundreds of thousands of dollars into the system but you will not see me bitch about it because that's the way it is designed.

Yes the democrats had a full 6 months to pass all the legislation they could but failed. Now that they have had their 6 month window the voters decided that they wanted Congress to be deadlocked again.

That hardly seems like a fair amount of time to pass reform legislation. Especially in light that "Blue Dog Democrats" have a tendency to side with Republicans to block key legislation.

Exactly. They didnt have a filibuster proof majority since the "blue dog democrats" are essentially repubs anyway. That doesnt mean the Dems havent drooped the ball however. In a time when the US needed reform most weve been mired in partisan bullshit.

Well said fun_size!

We have the exact Government we WANT.

True but not the one I voted for. I guess it is the one we deserve.

Yes i definitely agree that each country gets the leader it deserves.

Definitely the one we deserve, agreed. Though there are many things we can do besides vote to affect change in this country.

i don't care who the party is, i believe in majority rule. isn't that the basis of democracy?

Sure it is, but if you believe in TRUE and unadulterated Democracy, then we would never have had Women voting, African-Americans voting, Abortion, etc. None of these things were supported by a majority of the people. There is a fine line we tread when we open the door to unfettered Democracy.

if they weren't supported by a majority how did they pass? i'd love to see some info to back up that claim

They were passed by Congress but STRONGLY opposed by the Public. The Federal Courts, and the Supreme Court in particular, are the reason the Civil Rights movement gained enough momentum to win passage of the Civil Rights Act.

"Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths..."

-Madison

People make it that way. Not Democracy in and of itself. When people act in a manner in which they don't need to be governed, then they will not be governed, not until then.

Hey, was that the same Civil Rights Act that Democrats filibustered? You know, the party of "Equal Rights and Fairness?" When Robert Byrd D, W.Va filibustered the bill and Al Gore's dad tried "like the dickens" to block it but Republicans vast majority in favor of the bill, passed it anyway by bypassing the judiciary committee where a Democrat wanted to kill it?

http://www.nationalcenter.org/P21NVDavisGore599.html

Full disclosure, unhappy, registered Republican, who votes for the person based on integrity and Constructionist views. Lately only Republicans have given me anything close (but no where near) to my ideal candidate.

Yes, it was. Though those are not the same Democrats that represent the Party today. Let's be fair and not throw the Democratic Party to the wolves for what Democrats did a generation ago.

So were would we throw them then? How about instead of keeping blacks on the plantation farming cotton, we'll keep them in the collective farming VOTES!

Republicans and Democrats....Bring on the Workers Party!!!