MCCAIN: I fully recognize that Republicans have in the past engaged in using reconciliation to further the party’s agenda. I wish it had not been done then, and I hope it will not be done now that the groundwork has been laid.
Minority party is in minority for a reason, if Founders wanted it to have veto power, they would have given the losing party the presidency.
Haha, and absolutely right. They are both scum in this one.Quite funny to see the hypocrits who threatened to use it several years ago whining about it now. Deceitful bastards.
- wolf
Minority party is in minority for a reason, if Founders wanted it to have veto power, they would have given the losing party the presidency.
turin39789 said:The real resolution is for one of the parties to man up while in the minority and suggest filibuster reform.
The nuclear option is so shortsighted. Repubs were morons for even mentioning it years ago and Dems are fools for thinking the same.
Take off the blinders.
Democrats are the party of no and partisan hacks.
Bush could plant a red rose in the white house lawn and the Kennedy, Pilosi, Boxer, and that old bag of bones Reid would hold a press conference complaining the Rose is really yellow and he killed some ants doing it.
You throw out one of those four and it is like the 3 stoodges.
Show me the 60 vote requirement in the Constitution. Someone, please show me where it is. It's not nuclear option, its return to founders' intent. Strict constructionists should back it.
Not a bad idea...
In regards to reconciliation(which is what the dems are actually talking about):
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/26/mccain-concedes-reconciliation/
http://mediamattersaction.org/factcheck/200909030007
2005: Republicans Used Reconciliation To Enact Cuts In Medicare, Medicaid And Student LoansS. 1932: "An original bill to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 202(a) of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006 (H. Con. Res. 95)." "This bill cut nearly $40 billion over five years from the federal budget by imposing substantial changes on welfare, child support and student lending programs. The Washington Post reported that this bill represented 'the first effort in nearly a decade to try to slow the growth of entitlement programs, one that will be felt by millions of Americans.'...on Dec. 22, Vice President Dick Cheney had to cast a tie-breaking vote to secure its passage. Senate Democrats won some minor changes, forcing the House to vote on the new version on Feb. 1, 2006. It passed 216 to 214. The president signed the bill into law on Feb. 8, 2006."
With the way the repubs are abusing it now, however, it's a tough question.
BTW, the reason Republicans did not use nuclear option is because Democrats agreed to not filibuster but for exceptional cases. So Republicans did use the treat of the nuclear option. Now, Democrats should do the same. Republicans have abused the filibuster to paralyze the governance of this country without taking any responsibility. If Republicans don't agree to stop filibustering everything then nuclear option should be used and used immediately.
In regards to reconciliation(which is what the dems are actually talking about):
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/26/mccain-concedes-reconciliation/
http://mediamattersaction.org/factcheck/200909030007
Gotta love how the Dems weren't "abusing" it in the past, but "dem dere ebil Repuglicants!"
Gotta love how the Dems weren't "abusing" it in the past, but "dem dere ebil Repuglicants!"
Pro tip: The Republicans couldn't filibuster anything until Scott Brown was seated. So that means a year of a Democrat filibuster-proof majority.
"But the Republicans...!"
Funny, when the Repubs were actually threatening to use the 'nuclear option' years ago, Genx87 sand a different tune.
He didn't actually post in favor of it that I saw, but had not a word that I saw against it then.
Someone started a thread about a Republican Senator who was in favor of it wanting to delay because of bad polls, and Genx made a few posts without a single word about the Repubs being 'morons'. He said:
The Republicans couldn't filibuster anything until Scott Brown was seated. So that means a year of a Democrat filibuster-proof majority. The Republicans never had a filibuster-proof super majority during the Bush years.
"But the Republicans...!"
You'd be hard pressed to find me saying the dems weren't abusing it in the past. They were. There is, in fact, a growing tradition of abusing it. The repubs are now abusing it worse, BUT, that is not a partisan statement because I think each party is setting a precedant for the next party to bring it up a notch. In other words, I wouldnt be surprised if the dems use it as much or more the next time they are in power than the repubs are now. The problem isn't either party, it's a process of elevating partisanship which is getting worse year by year.
- wolf
The list of major legislation passed in the past few years suggests there is not the gridlock you claim.
Your shortsightedness is the problem with this country. Cant see past your nose and notice the wall you are about to run into.
What is percentage of legislation filibustered? Is it exception or the rule?
The intent of filibuster is to allow for sufficient debate, not as a veto power to a minority that the electorate did not want to be in charge. If a parliamentary procedure is abused to distort its intent, it needs to be nuked. There is nothing in the Constitution requiring 60 votes, so anyone who claims to be strict constructionist and for the filibuster is a hypocrite.
I would disagree that the Republicans are "abusing it worse"...
lmao you actually bothered to search that far back? Life a little slow on the PS3 today?
Article 1, Section 5, clause 2 allows both houses to destermine their rules of proceedings.
A strict constructionalist will allow both houses to determine what is best for them. But that doesnt mean they cant mock the idiots cheering them on for how shortsighted and stupid they are acting.
2 years from now Republicans gain back both houses and erase any healthcare gains Democrats have worked on with a simple 51 vote majority in the nuclear wasteland created by people like you.
Do you agree then that the Republicans were equally wrong to oppose filibusters when they held the majority? ("Straight up or down vote!")The body of the Senate was instituted just for that purpose of extended reflection and debate. To change the nature of that body into a twin of the House, with its short terms in office and short term perspective would be disastrous in the long term as the emotional rather than deliberative trends of the moment will be fully indulged.
As Biden so eloquently read in that clip, there is no permanence in who holds power. The elections of 2010 will likely return the Republicans to power, even more likely should the Democrats continue to fail to achieve any cross-party consensus. Whatever they choose to do now, the Democrats know fully well it will be done to them in 2011.
Nice avoidance, there.
Great, so Senate can determine what's best for it and ditch the filibuster. But to claim that filibusters were part of Founders intent is complete BS.
BTW, the Republicans should be free to erase any gains if they win majority and are the party voters want to be in charge. I doubt they'll have the cojones to vote against health care though. They are all hat and no cattle, just like Medicare and SS.