Given how long it took to seat Franken and the illness/death of Kennedy, the Democrats only theoretically had a filibuster-proof margin for about 5 minutes. And the Republicans used it more than double the number of times the Dems did under Bush.
I think the filibuster – which is NOT in the Constitution, you know – shouldn’t be as easy to do as it is now. It should be old school: stand up and keep talking. Right now it is as easy as waving your hand, and letting an individual derail the entire Congress that easily simply does not make sense.
The issue is that the filibuster, in the last two years, has been used more than ever before. Also, it is not a true filibuster. All the opposition had to do was say, “We’re going to filibuster,” and that would scuttle the works. The Democrats never in history used it this way with anything like the frequency the GOP has in the past two years.
Now, if the GOP would like, I bet the Dems could filibuster every bit of their legislation, too.
Question for you righties ( which you won’t answer, but I’ll ask anyway. )
Who was pushing for a ‘Nuclear Option’ a few years ago…the Dems or the Repubs?
It’s not that you guys are pushing lies that bugs me, it’s that you actually believe it’s the truth.
As for this constant yapping about ‘The people have spoken’ Yeah yeah….that’s what you said in 2000 and 2004….and I’ll admit it, what we said in 2008.’
The difference is that I think us Dems have learned our lesson now.
The Senate is already disproportional and the country has outgrown the need for it, when the original constitution had to balance big with small states. There should be a way to represent the majority of the People. Now that the filibuster has evolved so that it’s accepted that 60% is needed to pass anything, it has become a violation of the Constitution, which requires a majority of Senators and allows the Vice President to break a tie. If 60% is needed, there is never a tie.
Just bring back the original filibuster rules … required to stand and speak and no other business can be conducted. At least then they’d have to tell the American people why legislation should not allowed to be given an up or down vote.
The only thing certain about the rethugnocants is that to them a one member majority is filibuster proof.
Another certainty is that no rethugnocant would be able to stand and speak. Not enough drivel in the world to hold up that much crap.
Another certainty is that the graphic posted above is entirely illegible on rethugnocant computing machines.
The last certainty is that even if the rules were to be changed the rethugnocants would simply whine and whimper as usual until they were given their way in the spirit of shutting up a bunch of whiny, whimpering, slimy vermin.
It should now be called the “fullobluster”, as it has no semblance to the “filibuster” of old that required the person to at least “stand and deliver”. Even when Byrd in the old days stood for the “wrong” social order that WAS the order of the day, he stood and stayed. Being allowed to hamstring legislation under current rules is fraud. It is also, as noted, NOT in the Constitution, but only allowed by their own rules- that bend in the political wind and whim.
meetinthemiddle over 13 years ago
Given how long it took to seat Franken and the illness/death of Kennedy, the Democrats only theoretically had a filibuster-proof margin for about 5 minutes. And the Republicans used it more than double the number of times the Dems did under Bush.
The Party of No seems an apt nickname.
Motivemagus over 13 years ago
I think the filibuster – which is NOT in the Constitution, you know – shouldn’t be as easy to do as it is now. It should be old school: stand up and keep talking. Right now it is as easy as waving your hand, and letting an individual derail the entire Congress that easily simply does not make sense.
cdward over 13 years ago
The issue is that the filibuster, in the last two years, has been used more than ever before. Also, it is not a true filibuster. All the opposition had to do was say, “We’re going to filibuster,” and that would scuttle the works. The Democrats never in history used it this way with anything like the frequency the GOP has in the past two years.
Now, if the GOP would like, I bet the Dems could filibuster every bit of their legislation, too.
woodwork over 13 years ago
wonder why they spend all that time fighting and not taking care of what they were elected to do…last days…not open to any agreement…
WarBush over 13 years ago
One Senator being able to bring Congress to a grinding halt is not Democracy.
Jason Allen over 13 years ago
“Now, if the GOP would like, I bet the Dems could filibuster every bit of their legislation, too.”
They have to grow a spine first.
Simon_Jester over 13 years ago
Question for you righties ( which you won’t answer, but I’ll ask anyway. )
Who was pushing for a ‘Nuclear Option’ a few years ago…the Dems or the Repubs?
It’s not that you guys are pushing lies that bugs me, it’s that you actually believe it’s the truth.
As for this constant yapping about ‘The people have spoken’ Yeah yeah….that’s what you said in 2000 and 2004….and I’ll admit it, what we said in 2008.’
The difference is that I think us Dems have learned our lesson now.
RunninOnEmpty over 13 years ago
The Senate is already disproportional and the country has outgrown the need for it, when the original constitution had to balance big with small states. There should be a way to represent the majority of the People. Now that the filibuster has evolved so that it’s accepted that 60% is needed to pass anything, it has become a violation of the Constitution, which requires a majority of Senators and allows the Vice President to break a tie. If 60% is needed, there is never a tie.
donschneider44 over 13 years ago
way to go Pat ….thanks ! keep em’ coming
believecommonsense over 13 years ago
Just bring back the original filibuster rules … required to stand and speak and no other business can be conducted. At least then they’d have to tell the American people why legislation should not allowed to be given an up or down vote.
Jaedabee Premium Member over 13 years ago
T Gabriel Premium Member over 13 years ago
The only thing certain about the rethugnocants is that to them a one member majority is filibuster proof.
Another certainty is that no rethugnocant would be able to stand and speak. Not enough drivel in the world to hold up that much crap.
Another certainty is that the graphic posted above is entirely illegible on rethugnocant computing machines.
The last certainty is that even if the rules were to be changed the rethugnocants would simply whine and whimper as usual until they were given their way in the spirit of shutting up a bunch of whiny, whimpering, slimy vermin.
ray32648 over 13 years ago
The extent of the Repug use of the filibuster is unprecedented. Period. End of sentence.
Dtroutma over 13 years ago
It should now be called the “fullobluster”, as it has no semblance to the “filibuster” of old that required the person to at least “stand and deliver”. Even when Byrd in the old days stood for the “wrong” social order that WAS the order of the day, he stood and stayed. Being allowed to hamstring legislation under current rules is fraud. It is also, as noted, NOT in the Constitution, but only allowed by their own rules- that bend in the political wind and whim.
BAN IT!
fritzoid Premium Member over 13 years ago
Jade (or anybody), what’s the procedure for posting pictures?
rockngolfer over 13 years ago
4 hours later: I tried it, but couldn’t get it to work. Check out the Pibgorn comic and there is an explanation.