Should the Senate Filibuster rules be changed?

[Faithkills]

exactly. 41% of the Senate, which could represent 25% of the American people, should not be able to impose its will on the rest of the country.

Perhaps, theoretically, but since the reality is there's only 20% liberals being represented by 59% liberal members in the Senate I think the fillibuster is doing it's job fine.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/123854/conservatives-maintain-edge-top-ideological-group.aspx

Generally 51% is insufficient justification to force your will on others. IMO it should be 90% all the way around.

When we vote legislation in we're courageously deciding to delegate authority to men in uniforms to compel obedience and failing that act violently on our behalf.

If we're really split ~ 50/50 because one person more person showed up to vote one day that doesn't seem enough justification. The government is supposed to act in the name of the people, to do what the people by and large agree should be done, not to endlessly vie for power to force the 49% to do the bidding of the 51%.

 

[Sporanox]

exactly. 41% of the Senate, which could represent 25% of the American people, should not be able to impose its will on the rest of the country.

Parky, you keep on saying this like a clear majority of Americans support the health care bill. Here's the problem: they don't.

Also, you'll be on the other side of the coin when Republicans get power again, along with a certain Democratic hero (who has already demonstrated this unfortunate tendency).

 

[WildCat]

41 senators, representing much less than half of the population of the USA, can shut down the desires of the great majority of the American people. i don't find this to be very fair and democratic.

If this is about the idiotic health bills before Congress you'll find that the majority of Americans are against them. Your rule change would ensure that "the desires of the great majority of the American people" are disregarded.

 

[dudalb]

Yes, but it ain't gonna happen.

 

[ZirconBlue]

It's a farce. If we're OK with it requiring 60 votes to pass a bill, then we should just make it require 60 votes to pass, rather than sticking in an intermediate step.

 

[Thunder]

If this is about the idiotic health bills before Congress you'll find that the majority of Americans are against them. .

the majority of Americans are against a public-option. that will not appear in any final bill. that was the major issue for many months. now it is gone.

but, even with that change, Republicans in the Senate refuse to allow it come for a vote. 41 Senators, from states representing less than 40% of the American population, are dictating to more than 60% of America.

this is not right. this is not fare.

 

[seayakin]

There is nothing wrong with the filibuster, it just needs to be enforced. You want to stop a bill, you have to stop the whole Senate. Instead, we just have this dippy, “well, they could filibuster in theory, therefore we can’t get anything done” agreement. Make the filibuster difficult again and most of the controversy would go away.

I heard a political commentator say this very thing. Every time they talk about a filibuster I think of "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" but this commentator said that its been a long time since a senator actually filibustered instead of just threatening one.

 

[Faithkills]

the majority of Americans are against a public-option. that will not appear in any final bill. that was the major issue for many months. now it is gone.

but, even with that change, Republicans in the Senate refuse to allow it come for a vote. 41 Senators, from states representing less than 40% of the American population, are dictating to more than 60% of America.

this is not right. this is not fare.

It's not fair that some people can't spell.. but what can you do?

The fact is most people don't want this bill, public option or not. They don't want it because it will drive up prices and be a huge windfall for insurance companies.

The travesty would be if 60 senators could override the will of the people. The people spoke in Mass. Best they listen.

Perhaps now real reform can occur, not this boondoggle of payoffs to corporate political donors.

 

[theprestige]

I heard a political commentator say this very thing. Every time they talk about a filibuster I think of "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" but this commentator said that its been a long time since a senator actually filibustered instead of just threatening one.

How often is the filibuster bluff actually called, though?

I mean, it's not my fault if you back down without testing the truth of my threat, right?

 

[Sporanox]

the majority of Americans are against a public-option. that will not appear in any final bill. that was the major issue for many months. now it is gone.

but, even with that change, Republicans in the Senate refuse to allow it come for a vote. 41 Senators, from states representing less than 40% of the American population, are dictating to more than 60% of America.

this is not right. this is not fare.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ay_it_s_time_for_congress_to_drop_health_care

Sixty-one percent (61%) of U.S. voters say Congress should drop health care reform

Interesting you keep mentioning that number 60.

 

[Skeptic Guy]

It's not fair that some people can't spell.. but what can you do?

The fact is most people don't want this bill, public option or not. They don't want it because it will drive up prices and be a huge windfall for insurance companies.

The travesty would be if 60 senators could override the will of the people. The people spoke in Mass. Best they listen.

Perhaps now real reform can occur, not this boondoggle of payoffs to corporate political donors.

Bolding mine. Republicans keep saying this, but with no evidence.

 

[Sporanox]

Bolding mine. Republicans keep saying this, but with no evidence.

It is really quite tragic that you chose to post that right after the Rasmussen poll was posted...

If you want still more evidence that there is bipartisan support to kill the bill, just get a feel for what dailyKos, HuffPo, Howard Dean etc are saying. IIRC all of the major progressive players hated the bill.

 

[WildCat]

the majority of Americans are against a public-option. that will not appear in any final bill. that was the major issue for many months. now it is gone.

No, the majority are also against the House and Senate health bills: http://www.allheadlinenews.com/arti...gress Should Start Over On Health Care Reform

Americans want them to start over. Less than 40% of Americans support the current bills.

this is not right. this is not fare.

Pet peeve: fare is what you pay to get on the bus. The word you're looking for is fair.

 

[Ashles]

It depends on what the rules are. In the UK the lower house (Commons) is supreme and can pretty much ignore the votes of the upper house (Lords--not elected anyway),

They can't ignore them as much as they should be able to.

The Lords can and has blocked many proposals for example this one today.

Their power is to some degree limited.

Wiki explains:

The House of Lords debates legislation, and has some power to amend or reject bills. However, the power of the Lords to reject a bill passed by the House of Commons is severely restricted by the Parliament Acts. Under those Acts, certain types of bills may be presented for the Royal Assent without the consent of the House of Lords (i.e. the Commons can override the Lords' veto). The House of Lords cannot delay a money bill (a bill that, in the view of the Speaker of the House of Commons, solely concerns national taxation or public funds) for more than one month. Other public bills cannot be delayed by the House of Lords for more than two parliamentary sessions, or one calendar year. These provisions, however, only apply to public bills that originate in the House of Commons, and cannot have the effect of extending a parliamentary term beyond five years. A further restriction is a constitutional convention known as the Salisbury Convention, which means that the House of Lords does not oppose legislation promised in the Government's election manifesto.

In my opinion it is now an archaic embarassment that any part of our governmental process is in the hands of those whose only qualification for the job is that they were born in a certain family.

 

[Drysdale]

Funny you should bring this up now. Lemme guess though, if there's a huge flip in November then we'll need to change it back right?

 

[Ziggurat]

It is really quite tragic that you chose to post that right after the Rasmussen poll was posted...

You're wrong. It's comic, not tragic.

 

[Thunder]

Funny you should bring this up now. Lemme guess though, if there's a huge flip in November then we'll need to change it back right?

no..i am not one of THOSE people.

 

[Peephole]

Perhaps, theoretically, but since the reality is there's only 20% liberals being represented by 59% liberal members in the Senate I think the fillibuster is doing it's job fine.

This is retarded, not every Democrat is a liberal.

Also, if people don't like Democrats or their legislation, then they should vote for the other guys. This seems to be a strange concept around these parts.

The way politics generally works around the world is: people elect politicians, and these politicians execute the policies they were elected on.

If people don't like those policies, then tough luck, you shouldn't have been such a dumbass and have voted for someone else.

the majority of Americans are against a public-option.

They're not.
http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/upload/8042-C.pdf

The fact is most people don't want this bill, public option or not. They don't want it because it will drive up prices and be a huge windfall for insurance companies.

No, it's because they're horribly misinformed (as are you as prices are estimated to go down) about and generally tired of the whole process, see the above poll.

The travesty would be if 60 senators could override the will of the people. The people spoke in Mass. Best they listen.

So, one state in the United States decides everything?

Perhaps now real reform can occur, not this boondoggle of payoffs to corporate political donors.

Good luck getting any better legislation out of the U.S. Congress, especially with more Republicans in it.

It is really quite tragic that you chose to post that right after the Rasmussen poll was posted...

Great plan, just throw away all elections and Rule by Rasmussen.

It alliterates so it can't possible be bad.

 

[PogoPedant]

a filibuster prevents action. Since when is not doing anything considered tyranny?

1776?

 

[Thunder]

it really is kinda dumb to base legislation on simple polls. i mean, its one thing if several independent and diverse polls show 90% of the population against something, that would be one thing.

but random..infrequent polls? i don't think so. the greatest TRUE reflection of the will of the American people...is votes.

59% of the American electorate voted for a Democratic legislative agenda in the Senate. this is beyond doubt. almost 60% of the House is also Democratic.

this speaks to the will of the American people.