Should the Senate Filibuster rules be changed?

[carlitos]

3 pages later...

I suspect your father would be just as happy to change the filibuster rule from 60 senators to 59.

Nailed it.

 

[Beerina]

Hrm, let'e see...

Implement partial government ownership and increase government control over the nation's largest banks? Check.

Implement partial government ownership and increase government control over much of the nation's automobile manufacturing sector? Check.

Implement government takeover of health care, which is currently ~16% of GDP (~40% of which is already controlled by government) basically increasing the total size of government between 20% and 30%.

Massively expanding the size of government, having government become more tightly entwined with businesses by partial state ownership and greater direct control over operational decisions of businesses...I believe there is a word for that: dirigisme.

I heartily encourage the left to tout these things, loudly and often, from now through next November's election. Be proud! Stand up for these accomplishments!


Hehe, "no net job growth" during the last 10 years is a current talking point for the left -- and George Will pointed out this weekend on This Week that that was the private sector -- government union employees grew a hell of a lot during the same period.

 

[Random]

They had a filibuster-proof majority. Like it or not, the bill could have been passed if the Blue Dogs didn't get so scared.

We never had sixty Senators. We had about 45 Dems, a dozen or so Conservadems, Arlen Specter, who only joined the Dems to avoid losing a GOP primary challenge, a temporary replacement for Kennedy, and Joe “I oppose legislation I supported last week because I found out liberals liked it” Lieberman.

On rare occasions, when the sun was shining, the birds were signing, all the moons and planets were in alignment, and absolutely everything that could possibly go wrong didn’t, this mass of conflicting interests could be brought together to form a block that was technically sixty votes. Now that’s gone. Big deal.

 

[Sporanox]

We never had sixty Senators. We had about 45 Dems, a dozen or so Conservadems, Arlen Specter, who only joined the Dems to avoid losing a GOP primary challenge, a temporary replacement for Kennedy, and Joe “I oppose legislation I supported last week because I found out liberals liked it” Lieberman.

On rare occasions, when the sun was shining, the birds were signing, all the moons and planets were in alignment, and absolutely everything that could possibly go wrong didn’t, this mass of conflicting interests could be brought together to form a block that was technically sixty votes. Now that’s gone. Big deal.

The point still remains that it was people to the left of center who doomed the bill after being threatened by constituents (who should be, after all, the FIRST people a Senator should listen to).

 

[ZenFountain]

They had a filibuster-proof majority. Like it or not, the bill could have been passed if the Blue Dogs didn't get so scared.

There wasn't anything filibusterer proof about a majority that included Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu and Joe Lieberman. The notion that Democrats could stampede any legislation they wanted through the Senate with 60 votes was completely idiotic, a paper tiger if there ever was one.

 

[Random]

The point still remains that it was people to the left of center who doomed the bill after being threatened by constituents (who should be, after all, the FIRST people a Senator should listen to).

Maybe they just had different opinions (all the more reason to get rid of them I think). The whole point of the blue dogs is that they are not left of center, they are to the right. They only really get the Democrat brand because they are further left than the competition in the states they come from.

It's the "better candidates please" problem.

 

[Beerina]

I submit the entire legislative process should be overhauled, with no law being passed in the first place without a 3/4 majority.

Absolute guarantee that nothing will get doen unless there are people dying in the streets.

And?


No, seriously. And? I don't want people mucking about with stuff that doesn't belong to them, at the winds of blowing hyperbole, as catered to by power-hungry politicians.

Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son. Transient 51% majorities are no way to pass quasi-permanent laws, son.

 

[theprestige]

And?


No, seriously. And? I don't want people mucking about with stuff that doesn't belong to them, at the winds of blowing hyperbole, as catered to by power-hungry politicians.

Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son. Transient 51% majorities are no way to pass quasi-permanent laws, son.

This.

I mean, government is best for life-and-death sitautions that cannot possibly be solved any other way. Everything else is just feature creep.

 

[Sporanox]

Maybe they just had different opinions (all the more reason to get rid of them I think). The whole point of the blue dogs is that they are not left of center, they are to the right. They only really get the Democrat brand because they are further left than the competition in the states they come from.

It's the "better candidates please" problem.

Not so sure about that. I don't consider Blue Dogs to be right of center.

 

[FarmallMTA]

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), and the Queen (erm, not elected either) hasn't vetoed any acts since 1708 (different queen).

Not even the anti-fox hunting bill? Jeez. What does the lady DO all day?

 

[leftysergeant]

The point still remains that it was people to the left of center who doomed the bill after being threatened by constituents (who should be, after all, the FIRST people a Senator should listen to).

Snivelling Joe is not left of center. He is losing his marbles and drifting to the right.