Filibusters and Reconciliation

[Thunder]

(And I note that wanting a bi-partisan bill for political reasons still means that they're sincerely trying to engage the Republicans who are obviously only interested in keeping the status quo.)

well, it does appear that the Dems are going to push forward with a bi-partisan bill, even though it will have no bi-partisan support.

when the GOP was in control, did they ever attempt to include Democrat ideas even though there was little if any Democratic support for the bill?

I doubt it.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

well, it does appear that the Dems are going to push forward with a bi-partisan bill, even though it will have no bi-partisan support.

when the GOP was in control, did they ever attempt to include Democrat ideas even though there was little if any Democratic support for the bill?

I doubt it.

I think it depends on how you define it. I'm sure some of the biggest chunks of "Republican" legislation (I'm thinking, for example, of the Energy Bill) were written by and for the industry the legislation would affect (the energy industry, for example) which can usually be accurately described as "bi-partisan" concerns since they buy off give campaign donations to members of both major parties.

 

[Dancing David]

Filibusters are used by the minority in the Senate to keep a simple majority from passing laws. I do not believe such a procedure was created to allow for constant and repetitive use, due to pure political wrangling and dissagrement.

Additionally, Reconciliatiion is used by the majority to avoid Filibusters once a super-majority passes legislation.

How often should Filibusters be used? Should there be a yearly limit? Should the majority have the right to appeal a Filibuster to the SCOTUS?

I think, if the minority is gonna use the Filibuster, they better have a damn good reason, and they should be able to argue this reason. Filibusters should be used to prevent legislation which the minority feels is dangerous for the nation. Not due to petty politics or election concerns.

Um, it is a rule of the Senate which is not likely to change. The Senate was designed to be a brake on the whole system in many ways, as was the SCOTUS. Originally it was designed to mimic the upper house of parliment, to represent the aristocracy and vested intrests, but it was also meant to be a buffer for the smaller states upon the larger states, some states like Delaware and Rhode Island already felt that New York, Pennsylvania and Georgia were going to have too much power, hence, two Senators for every state. Many of the checks are meant to stall the whole rest of teh system.

The whole thing runs on petty politics.

 

[Dancing David]

The best change I could see would be a rule requiring that if the mionority wishes to extend debate, they can bloody well stand right there, in session, no going home to change clothes, raise campaign funds or do the freak nasty with the main squeeze. Fllor speeches should be limited to discussion of actual or percieved defects in the measure at hand.

It would at least make life difficult for blithering little twits like Bunning.

The founding fathers rightly feared mob rule, especially later as they watched the French tyranny of the mob.

The Senate was meant to be a check on the President and the House of Representatives, and just as the SCOTUS is they are also meant to be reactionary and hide bound. It is likely to change some day.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The Senate was designed to be a brake on the whole system in many ways, as was the SCOTUS. Originally it was designed to mimic the upper house of parliment, to represent the aristocracy and vested intrests, but it was also meant to be a buffer for the smaller states upon the larger states, some states like Delaware and Rhode Island already felt that New York, Pennsylvania and Georgia were going to have too much power, hence, two Senators for every state. Many of the checks are meant to stall the whole rest of teh system.

Woah! Synchronicity! That's the very point I'm making over in this thread to someone who denies that that's the purpose of the Senate.

 

[Beerina]

I encourage all laws to be filibustered, unless they do away with previous laws.

If Congress doesn't have the power in the first place, then they can't be bought.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I encourage all laws to be filibustered, unless they do away with previous laws.

If Congress doesn't have the power in the first place, then they can't be bought.

While I appreciate and share your cynicism of the greedy bastards, I also think there are many things that we need to have done for the welfare of the people at the federal level. I think the current system actually has about the right balance of making it possible to pass big reforms while making it difficult to do so.

I think there are other ways of getting the money out.

 

[leftysergeant]

If Congress doesn't have the power in the first place, then they can't be bought.

Right,then. Castrate the lot of them and the corporations can just go ahead and do what they damned well please without having to buy a candidate.

You seriously need some fresh ideas, dude.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

On Meet the Press this morning, Cantor said the Republicans are in favor of the states adopting programs to help those 30 million uninsured get insurance.

Is there any meaningful way, coming from a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, that this is something other than an admission that the Republican Party is in favor of doing nothing at the national level?

Or is Cantor running for office in his state legislature now?

 

[leftysergeant]

On Meet the Press this morning, Cantor said the Republicans are in favor of the states adopting programs to help those 30 million uninsured get insurance.

Is there any meaningful way, coming from a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, that this is something other than an admission that the Republican Party is in favor of doing nothing at the national level?

Actually, their way of doing nothing at all.

They aren't much into governing you know.

 

[Doc Daneeka]

Actually, their way of doing nothing at all.

They aren't much into governing you know.

Actually, they are. It's only when they are out of power that the Republican party becomes obsessed with the evils of government. When they are in power, they are more than happy to legislate on every matter under the sun, and it suddenly becomes unpatriotic to criticize the government.

 

[Beerina]

Right,then. Castrate the lot of them and the corporations can just go ahead and do what they damned well please without having to buy a candidate.

You seriously need some fresh ideas, dude.

Horrible corporations, without the ability to rent-seek by getting favorable laws passed that hinder competition rank where, on the list of humanity's problems historically?

And governments sticking their thumbs in everywhere, making getting permission, with attendant kickbacks, for anything anybody wants to do, rank where, on the list of humanity's problems historically?

 

[Beerina]

On Meet the Press this morning, Cantor said the Republicans are in favor of the states adopting programs to help those 30 million uninsured get insurance.

Is there any meaningful way, coming from a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, that this is something other than an admission that the Republican Party is in favor of doing nothing at the national level?

Or is Cantor running for office in his state legislature now?

Problem: 30 million uninsured

"Solution": Take over insurance for the remaining 270 million!

Bald Assertion: No reduction in the quality or quantity of new medical technology will occur.



Problem: 30 million people can't afford video games

"Solution": Take over video game industry for the remaining 270 million!

Bald Assertion: No reduction in the quality or quantity of video games will occur.



If it's good for the former, it should be good for fluff like the latter.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Problem: 30 million uninsured

"Solution": Take over insurance for the remaining 270 million!

Bald Assertion: No reduction in the quality or quantity of new medical technology will occur.



Problem: 30 million people can't afford video games

"Solution": Take over video game industry for the remaining 270 million!

Bald Assertion: No reduction in the quality or quantity of video games will occur.



If it's good for the former, it should be good for fluff like the latter.

Funny, you quoted my post, but didn't refer to anything in it.

So, is what Cantor said in any meaningful way different than saying they don't want to solve the problem of the uninsured?

 

[Thunder]

Problem: 30 million uninsured

"Solution": Take over insurance for the remaining 270 million!

Problem: 30 million people can't afford video games

"Solution": Take over video game industry for the remaining 270 million!
.

You are comparing health-insurance, that can save someone's life and prevent them from going bankrupt....to video games?????

Hoenstly????

 

[leftysergeant]

Problem: 30 million uninsured

"Solution": Take over insurance for the remaining 270 million!

Wrong. The idea is to make insurance of some sort available to the rest. Nobody is socializing the insurance business...

Yet.

And I am not sure that it is a bad idea to do so at all. Maybe automobile liability insurance should also be socialized, with bad drivers subsidizing the good ones. Less money into the pockets of marketing and management people, more into the pockets of victims of other people's stupidity and drunkeness. (But that is a bit off-topic.)

Bald Assertion: No reduction in the quality or quantity of new medical technology will occur.

Money paid to share holders and merciless bean counters who cut off people's medical treatments are hardly available to advance research. Your assertion is utterly illogical.

Problem: 30 million people can't afford video games

"Solution": Take over video game industry for the remaining 270 million!

Bald Assertion: No reduction in the quality or quantity of video games will occur.

Video games are not essential to human life, thus not part of the commons by any standards.

If it's good for the former, it should be good for fluff like the latter.

Your childish parroting of Libertarian whackdoodlisms is becoming tiresome.

 

[Dumb All Over]

There is another way of circumventing the filibuster without getting rid of it all together, albeit it's pretty difficult to accomplish. If you can create a sooper-dooper oober majority of one party or the other, then a filibuster is easily defeated.

Hmm...I'm trying to remember the last time any party had that kind of majority and what they did to pass their legislation.

 

[AvalonXQ]

So, is what Cantor said in any meaningful way different than saying they don't want to solve the problem of the uninsured?

What Cantor said could be reasonably argued to imply that the solution for insuring uninsured Americans is not best found in a new federal law.

 

[Ziggurat]

I saw something about the "nuclear option" vs "reconciliation" thing the other day, where it was reported that some republican called it "an unprecedented act" by the senate. Barbara Boxer found that "reconciliation" had been used 22 times in the last 30 years...16 times by republicans.

The use of reconciliation to pass budgets is not unprecedented. The use of reconciliation to create a new government program is unprecedented. Can you spot the difference?

yes. its called GOP hypocrisy.

No, it's called deception, on the part of Barbara Boxer. And you fell for it.

 

[leftysergeant]

What Cantor said could be reasonably argued to imply that the solution for insuring uninsured Americans is not best found in a new federal law.

Well, the problem is that the only alternative is to leave it to the "free market."