Senate Filibusters Legislation to End Filibustering

Rancor News ^ | August 24th, 2010 | Tyson Bam

[tysonbam]

As criticism mounts over legislative gridlock it appears the Senate is poised to filibuster legislation that would end filibustering. In the most impressive display of bipartisanship since the opposition to health care, Senate Republicans and Democrats are teaming up in an effort to stop the legislation dead in its tracks.

Republican Senators complained, “We need the filibuster if we are to continuing campaigning as the party for smaller government and fiscal responsibility. Without it, there is no one to blame when we expand government and increase deficits. It also provides valuable face time for us to perform on our soap box for voters. Without the free press we wouldn't have the funds to travel to exotic junkets and pamper ourselves. What would we do then? Craft legislation?"

Senate Democrats toed the party line stating, “We fought tooth and nail to pass partisan legislation the majority of Americans didn't want. We aren't in the business of making it easier to repeal it all. We may lose seats in the short term but our big government agenda is funding a whole new generation of poor dependent Democratic voters. We'll be back before you know it.”

Americans are left wondering if anyone in the Senate actually cares about our flagging economy, crushing unemployment numbers, record deficits, bloated entitlements, conflicts abroad, and immigration woes. Here at Rancor News “We Report, We Decide.” The answer is no. No one in the Senate cares.

Tyson Bam August 24th, 2010

[Erik Latranyi]

Just to let you know, the Daily KOS is 100% behind eliminating the fillibuster in the Senate and working on a simple majority vote.

[tysonbam]

yea, didn’t really mean for it to sound like I dislike the filibuster as much as I wanted to make fun of how both parties use it

[SkyPilot]

Let's just have "Obama Decrees" from the White House balcony and be done with it.

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

A very long time ago, Senators, in the majority of the Senate, realized that the Senate was the cooling chamber for the hot reactionary laws of the House.

The Senate was to be the place to slow down fast change and prompt action.

The Senate was the place for slow and careful deliberation.

But those wise Senators realized that times could change and the Senators of the future might forget the wisdom of what we now call “gridlock”. So a majority of Senators decided that something called a “filibuster” was needed.

It was needed so that a simple majority might not act caprisciously and without due consideration.

That is why the filibuster was needed and is still needed.

[Erik Latranyi]

The left is really hot on this. Somehow they forget how effective the fillibuster was in slowing down that evil Bush 43.

http://www.credoaction.com/campaign/senate_fix/

[Cboldt]

Back when Congress recognized that it prepared legislation under a limited grant of power, there was no filibuster. A majority of senators could both "move the question" and pass the law. In 1808, the rule providing for "move the question" was eliminated, a move felt to be inconsequential as it was rarely (perhaps never) used.

Your point in asserting a need for the filibuster, is, I think, that a majority of the Senate at any given point is not trustworthy, and a supermajority is necessary. So, what level for passage should the senate set for itself? It set at 3/4ths around the 19-teens, later changed to 2/3rds, and I think in the 1960's (the current rule) 3/5ths [except for changing rules, ratifying treaties, and conviction on impeachment, all of which ostensibly require 2/3rds].