Would agree with you on Schumer.
Problem is, he’s the D’s most prodigious fund-raiser and he’s always willing to share the $$$ as evidenced by this year’s activity. That ‘talent’ carries a lot of weight in our current system.
Besides, if Schumer’s good enough for Harry to pick over Durbin, then i have to go with Harry’s insight.
IMHO, Pelosi’s the most effective House Speaker of my lifetime.
Respectfully
Absolutely. I’d love to have her back.
I have thought of the filibuster as being something somewhat outside of the constitution. My suspicion is that it originally came about as something to preserve comity in the senate, in the sense that if the minority found something to be truly a threat to their most basic interests, they had a last resort available.
The republicans under McConnell have so abused the filibuster as to make it meaningless for that purpose, by destroying the basic level of respect and trust required for “comity” to exist. Very short-sighted and foolhardy thing to do, to my mind.
The filibuster is an archaic non-constitutional old boy wink-wink nudge-nudge time-wasting shine the spotlight on me for some stupid-ass reason before I give up and the vote goes on as planned Senate rule designed for the filibustering Senator’s re-election effort.
It has no merit in modern times, and I am a little pissed that Reid didn’t get rid of it when he had the chance.
Thank God. If they don’t want to govern, get out of the way and let the adults do the heavy lifting. Enough of this horse shit.
When they go low, we release dense, noxious gas.
On the other hand, who knows HOW the GOP will recover after this election tho. There may be a split. Trump isn’t going to just walk away. If he leaves, he’ll take a lot of pissed off, former GOP votes with him.
Thanks, but I just don’t agree with this type of thinking. We need to get stuff done, and we can’t if the Rs are allowed to filibuster. If we get stuff done, we have a decent chance of keeping our Senate seats in 2018. If we don’t, we will get creamed, and will deserve it. If we get rid of the filibuster and do lose the Congress in 2018, and if tge Republicans then actually send bad bills to Madame President, she will veto them. No guts, no glory. The filibuster encourages reckless behavior. Let’s just get rid of it.
If Republicans decide to maintain an absolute filibuster on any SC nominee that a President Hillary Clinton proposes, then Democrats will have no choice, if they are in the majority, but to nuke the filibuster on SC appointments. And that will make it hard for Democrats when there is a Republican president with a Republican-controlled Senate, but that will be something that will have to be dealt with at some point in the future. That kind of obstructionism would seriously damage the effectiveness of a third branch of government that is supposed to be co-equal with the Congress and the Executive and cannot be allowed.
No; the original intent of the rule was to allow the Senate to be a more deliberative body than the House, which is ruled by simple majority. Its a guard against “tyranny of the majority,” which the Founders had serious worries about.
The problem is not so much the filibuster, but the abuse of it, and it arises out of the extreme partisanship that has infected American political life. A generation ago, the filibuster was used to force compromises in proposed legislation that made it more palatable to the minority party. Now it’s being used to prevent the majority party from doing anything at all. And that is fundamentally un-American.
The rule was originally written by Thomas Jefferson, who was most certainly a Founder.
Yes, I think that would be a much better approach. Force the people who wish to filibuster to keep their 40 votes on the floor, rather than requiring the majority to muster a supermajority. I don’t want to see any more Senators hauled in from a sick bed the way Robert Byrd was in order to break a filibuster.
[quote=“libthinker, post:80, topic:45690”]
I have thought of the filibuster as being something somewhat outside of the constitution.[/quote]
It’s absolutely extraconstitutional, in the sense that the only thing the Constitution authorizes is for the Senate to make its rules. The filibuster is permitted under the rules of the Senate. Article I, Section 2 says that each House determines its rules.
My suspicion is that it originally came about as something to preserve comity in the senate, in the sense that if the minority found something to be truly a threat to their most basic interests, they had a last resort available.
My recollection from reading is that the filibuster isn’t really explicitly mentioned even in the rules. It is a side effect of the lack of a rule limiting debate: unlike Robert’s Rules (and the House Rules), the Senate must explicitly vote to close debate on an issue. The rules also call for a supermajority to reach cloture. The size of the supermajority has varied. It is currently 60%. There have always been privileged issues that had limited debate – budget reconciliation is the only one I can think of the top of my head.
Eugene.
I will miss Harry something fierce. If the filibusters are removed and it hurts Dems, so be it. I suspect most Republicans secretly vote for GOP scum because they know Dems won’t let them destroy the Social Safety-net and Social Benefits.
F&^K them … they sew the wind … let them reap the whirlwind.
Good article, as usual. Poor choice on the photo. Nothing funny about nukes.
The filibuster DOES NOT need to be “blown up!” The filibuster needs to be in place, BUT allowing a senator to just state they are filibustering goes against what is a filibuster! Maintain the 60 vote threshold to defeat the filibuster, but require senators to ACTUALLY filibuster! If you don’t know what that is, watch Mr Smith Goes to Washington! The filibuster is not some evil or nefarious method of gridlock unless it is improperly applied, as it is currently.
Not to mention, the 201 Democratic Representatives elected in 2012 got 1.4 million more votes than the 234 Republicans elected that year. So much for the more democratic house…
No, it was part of the Great Compromise that allowed slavery to live on since it would have required a majority of the Senate to abolish it and the country was pretty evenly divided at its creation. Missouri Compromise, Kansas-Nebraska Act come to mind?