Comments on: Fighting the filibuster http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/12/03/fighting-the-filibuster/ Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: segmentis http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/12/03/fighting-the-filibuster/#comment-68239 Wed, 05 Dec 2012 04:10:01 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=15930#comment-68239 Those unfamiliar with what is actually being debated here might consider reading the complaint (PDF):

http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%7Bfb3 c17e2-cdd1-4df6-92be-bd4429893665%7D/FIL ED%20COMPLAINT.PDF

]]>
By: segmentis http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/12/03/fighting-the-filibuster/#comment-68238 Wed, 05 Dec 2012 04:04:11 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=15930#comment-68238 @Cristofer: What on earth does the fact that we’re a Republic have to do with the question at hand? And you do understand that the filibuster wasn’t written into our Constitution but rather developed later, right? Also, do you take issue with any law that passes with a bare majority, even those you agree with, or only with those with which you disagree? Specious arguments at best, and hardly representative of historical or constitutional scholarship.

@Fixerguy: Harry Reid should be found “personally liable” for what, exactly? When’s the last time you heard of a Senator being sued for bringing an issue to the floor or, as Majority Leader, asking for a vote on a Senate rule change? Right–that’s not how Congress or our democracy work. Maybe educate yourself before you blather silly things in public.

]]>
By: monicaisliberal http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/12/03/fighting-the-filibuster/#comment-68234 Wed, 05 Dec 2012 01:13:12 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=15930#comment-68234 Great job by Ari to put a face on what the filibuster does to our government and us as citizens. We need more coverage like this on how we pay the price for posturing and grand standing by elected officials. When you put a human face on the laws, it puts many things into perspective.

]]>
By: tmc http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/12/03/fighting-the-filibuster/#comment-68223 Tue, 04 Dec 2012 21:46:32 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=15930#comment-68223 Maybe we should have the electoral college pick our senators too?

]]>
By: Evelio http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/12/03/fighting-the-filibuster/#comment-68213 Tue, 04 Dec 2012 20:59:34 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=15930#comment-68213 This was a very interesting article.

Go Reid !
I believe that the rules should be changed to stop dis-functioning government, and allow the filibuster only for the original reasons, “including international treaties and overriding a presidential veto”. Otherwise we find ourselves in the current situation.

The other problem we face is when a political minority, like the one in the House, can block an “Up or Down” vote from coming to the floor. The executive should have the power to request an up or down vote in one House if the issue has been passed by the other House of Congress.

]]>
By: Sanity-Monger http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/12/03/fighting-the-filibuster/#comment-68182 Tue, 04 Dec 2012 17:54:40 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=15930#comment-68182 I believe that Reid’s proposals are far less radical than is presented here. I believe that the proposed changes would bar filibuster of the debate, but you could still filibuster the vote. It would also block filibuster of appointments of all but a set of specified offices. Overall, it is a tweak of the existing system, which was not that problematic until the Republicans decided to abuse it during the Obama administration.

The filibuster is particularly insidious in the Senate, since representation there is not proportional. As state populations have diverged, the power of a minority has grown to levels that in my view are dangerous, and certainly anti-democratic. The last number I heard (from several years back) is that Senators representing just 11% of the US population could filibuster anything. OTOH, without the filibuster, Senators representing a large majority of citizens can be overruled by those representing the small states. The crux of this issue is the non-proportional representation, and a constitutional convention is likely needed to address that one.

As for the tyranny of the majority, that is what the Bill of Rights and our courts are for. The examples of times when minority rights have been trampled on is when the courts, not the legislature, have failed in their duty.

]]>
By: tmc http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/12/03/fighting-the-filibuster/#comment-68112 Tue, 04 Dec 2012 14:20:59 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=15930#comment-68112 Many of the older politicians, mostly republican, are trying to hold onto their way of government and the “way things should be”. The filibuster was part of that past. It was a useful and important tool for a long time. Unfortunately like many other things from the 20th century, it no longer works in this new 21st century global world. The country changed, literally. The demographics of the US are significantly different now than in say 1955. The US government is changing too. It feels like agonizingly slow changes, but from a historians point of view, it is changing abnormally fast.

]]>
By: RTKMD http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/12/03/fighting-the-filibuster/#comment-68046 Tue, 04 Dec 2012 04:08:57 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=15930#comment-68046 Seems unlikely in this case the Court will overrule the Senate. But the Senate should vote on its rules on January 3. To not do so only allows the majority members to whine when a vital post in unfilled or a great piece of legislation is blocked by a minority. To the commenter who considers the filibuster the only protection of the minority, think again. The Constitution, including its amendments, protect the minority.
And, by the way, there is a serious argument about your point: “(It would require a supermajority during the rest of the year.)” Constitutional scholars doubt even this. Certainly non-scholars, such as Trent Lott, Bill Frist, and Dick Cheney did.
“Other senators – mostly Republicans, but also some Democrats – say that no matter what day it is, the rules should be changed only with a supermajority.” True. They do say “should.” Not “cannot.”
Email your Senators to support Senator Tom Udall in his efforts to get the Senate to do its duty to adopt rules on January 3, rather than default to rules 98 of them have never voted on. Otherwise they will continue to whine and blame the filibuster for their failures, as if they had no control over its adoption.

]]>
By: Fixerguy http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/12/03/fighting-the-filibuster/#comment-68045 Tue, 04 Dec 2012 03:15:45 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=15930#comment-68045 I sincerely hope they find Reid personally liable and fine the CRAP out of him ($100 mil sounds like a good starting point).

]]>
By: Greenspan2 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/12/03/fighting-the-filibuster/#comment-68044 Tue, 04 Dec 2012 02:31:55 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=15930#comment-68044 Well, for most of America’s history, racial minorities have not been well protected and were both tyranized and terrorized. Thankfully, both Congress and much later, the courts, granted equal rights to all citizens. The recent abuse of the filibuster has been perpetuated by a political minority in the Senate intent on obstructing government and holding Congress hostage to their minority agenda which tends towards corporate fascism due to financial backing by corporate and special interests, at the expense of the general public. I consider that to be a form of tyranny and look forward to this miscarriage of democracy to be brought to a swift end.

]]>