As one often accused of being a liberal, I will state that I have no issues with the filibuster, as long as it is used in its original form: talk until they can find 60 votes to shut you up. But you have to talk. You have to continue to say something, no matter how important or inane, no matter how close to or how far from the original subject. But you have to talk.
Today’s use of the filibuster: “I call FILIBUSTER. This automatically means that any vote taken will require 60 votes to pass.” This is way too easy, and therefore way too easy to take advantage of.
There was a Star Trek episode (stay with me) where two societies were at war. One would launch a “strike”, but it was only computerized. There were casualties; a certain number of people would have to go into death chambers as a result of the “strike”, but at least the societies could keep their architecture, and their infrastructure, and their culture. War made clean. No major consequences; a few people just disappear. Time for the next strike.
The current filibuster rule is the same; there is no consequence for using it, so it’s way over-used. If viewers could see what Senators would talk about during filibusters, we’d see far fewer of them, and they’d only be used in truly controversial situations.
Notice I made no mention of political party. The rules should be the same, no matter who is in the majority. But the rules need to be restored to original, or the filibuster has no purpose except for those who like minority rule and/or massive gridlock.
Like a dog, the Republicans just kept abusing, the filibuster, until it finally bit them. There is a difference between a valid tool used sparingly, and stupidly mis-using that tool. Harry just put the blade guard back on their table saw, it’s still there in the shop if appropriate.
<<<Despite the overheated rhetoric coming from the right, it’s worth noting the rules change only applies to executive appointees, not enacting legislation.>>>True, for now…
I Play One On TV over 10 years ago
As one often accused of being a liberal, I will state that I have no issues with the filibuster, as long as it is used in its original form: talk until they can find 60 votes to shut you up. But you have to talk. You have to continue to say something, no matter how important or inane, no matter how close to or how far from the original subject. But you have to talk.
Today’s use of the filibuster: “I call FILIBUSTER. This automatically means that any vote taken will require 60 votes to pass.” This is way too easy, and therefore way too easy to take advantage of.
There was a Star Trek episode (stay with me) where two societies were at war. One would launch a “strike”, but it was only computerized. There were casualties; a certain number of people would have to go into death chambers as a result of the “strike”, but at least the societies could keep their architecture, and their infrastructure, and their culture. War made clean. No major consequences; a few people just disappear. Time for the next strike.
The current filibuster rule is the same; there is no consequence for using it, so it’s way over-used. If viewers could see what Senators would talk about during filibusters, we’d see far fewer of them, and they’d only be used in truly controversial situations.
Notice I made no mention of political party. The rules should be the same, no matter who is in the majority. But the rules need to be restored to original, or the filibuster has no purpose except for those who like minority rule and/or massive gridlock.
Enoki over 10 years ago
Ah, but back then sane people were in charge and passed on doing it. Now the inmates are running the asylum!
Dtroutma over 10 years ago
Like a dog, the Republicans just kept abusing, the filibuster, until it finally bit them. There is a difference between a valid tool used sparingly, and stupidly mis-using that tool. Harry just put the blade guard back on their table saw, it’s still there in the shop if appropriate.
jimhargrave over 10 years ago
<<<Despite the overheated rhetoric coming from the right, it’s worth noting the rules change only applies to executive appointees, not enacting legislation.>>>True, for now…
RonBerg13 Premium Member over 10 years ago
Hey now!! Don’t hold back. Tell how you really feel.