Site Search:
 
TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Filibuster Reform

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2012 4:20 pm    Post subject: Filibuster Reform Reply with quote

Up with Chris Hayes took up the case for filibuster reform this morning.

Up with Chris Hayes link

Right now, the minority can filibuster any measure before it reaches the open floor. The reform proposal would prevent that, and force the minority party to filibuster a bill openly and with substantive argument.

There's an interesting twist. The reform proposal to amend Senate procedure will win on a 51-49 vote. Thereby, the reform proposal, if it passes upon its introduction following the lame duck session, would itself imperil the filibuster itself with its precedent.

I encourage you to watch at the link if you are at all interested.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Unibrow



Joined: 20 Aug 2012

PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2012 10:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Obama is trying to take more of our freedoms. This is another step towards communism
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
comm



Joined: 22 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2012 4:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The American government was set up so as to move very slowly for a reason. Now that the majority of Americans see their government (and the money of fellow citizens) as the solution to all of their problems, that reason has been forgotten.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2012 4:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

comm wrote:
The American government was set up so as to move very slowly for a reason. Now that the majority of Americans see their government (and the money of fellow citizens) as the solution to all of their problems, that reason has been forgotten.


The filibuster reform is meant to return the filibuster to its pre-1990 norms. Right now, a single senator can keep a bill FROM REACHING THE SENATE FLOOR, let alone being passed after debate, unless 60 votes can be found to overcome it. That's a broken system.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
comm



Joined: 22 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2012 4:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kuros wrote:
The filibuster reform is meant to return the filibuster to its pre-1990 norms.
That may well be better then. But I hope caution is used when allowing laws to be passed more easily.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
actionjackson



Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Any place I'm at

PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2012 5:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Unibrow wrote:
Obama is trying to take more of our freedoms. This is another step towards communism

I'll admit that Obama has a lot of faults but how is he taking away our freedoms when it's the Senate that's trying to enact reform? Maybe they're just trying to get something accomplished.

And besides, this is nothing more than one side trying to get what they want. The Republicans were all in favor of filibuster reform when it suited their needs.

Quote:
Senator Bill Frist, R-Tenn. (Senate Majority Leader through 2006)
"In other words, I have sought to address Democrats' grievances while holding true to the core principle of an up-or-down vote. So far, my Democrat colleagues have rejected all efforts at compromise, and continue to insist on a new, 60-vote standard. Such a position is unacceptable."

"One way or another, the filibuster of judicial nominees must end [This use of filibusters is a] formula for tyranny by the minority."

Quote:
Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky.
"The United States Senate faces an unprecedented crisis brought on by the minority party. Judges who have been nominated by the President of the United States to the federal bench have been held up by a filibuster and cannot get a fair up-or-down vote. This unfair tactic is breaking years of Senate tradition. The issue of blatant obstructionism the Democrats are displaying should not be ignored anymore. I support a change in the rules of the Senate to allow for an up-or-down vote on judicial nominations. We must not let the minority party circumvent the Constitution, and take away the right of the President to have his judicial nominees voted on by a simple up-or-down vote."

And my favorite, simply because his argument is it's unfair.
Quote:
Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga.
"Yet for the past two years, the Senate has failed to carry out this duty because the minority party has filibustered several of President Bush's judicial nominees. The minority has blocked the majority from having an up-or-down vote. Not only does the Constitution require an up-or-down vote, denial of an up-or-down vote goes against basic principles of fairness; it also is unprecedented in Senate history."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Unposter



Joined: 04 Jun 2006

PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2012 8:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Put me square in Comm's conrner on this. We don't need to make laws or spend money any easier than we can now. In fact, I'd be for getting rid of the filibuster (waste of time) and just saying nothing gets out of committe and nothing passes into law without a 60% super-majority. If you can't get 60 Senators to agree on something than maybe it is flawed. And, if politics get in the way then we need to change our politics or do nothing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Mon Dec 03, 2012 4:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You know who ought to have veto authority? The President of the United States.

You know who oughtn't have veto authority? 41 Senators.

People talking about how it needs to be harder to pass laws (or shouldn't be any easier) are completely wrong-headed on this issue. A law already has four potential hurdles:

1) Passing the House
2) Passing the Senate
3) Avoiding Presidential Veto or Requiring Super-majority Legislative Support
4) Avoiding Elimination by Judicial Review

De facto veto authority is not something we need to hand to a 41% minority of Senators; those elected to govern need to be able to actually govern. It's not even just about laws: minority senators regularly block judicial appointments, for example, something which has been a huge act of obstruction under Obama in particular.

Filibusters ought to exist, but only in a very limited capacity; it ought to require a filibustering senator to stand on the floor and talk, continuously, for as long as he wishes to filibuster. And if the next senator wants to swap out and continue to talk, that's fine. "We are now entering the tenth day of Senate Republicans continually talking on the debate floor to filibuster," is how a filibuster headline ought to read. It needs to require more effort than a text message, and that effort needs to be both continual and prone to eventual failure, holding back a bad idea long enough for the public to fully understand why it's bad and express their contempt, not simply to quietly veto something you personally disagree with. It needs to be a serious sacrifice of time and effort to ensure it is utilized only in the face of genuinely important issues: if you can't envision spending the next few weeks of your life talking continually, every day, on the Senate floor, you don't care enough to justify a filibuster.

Rome tried the whole, "Let's turn our primary legislative body into an obstructionist mess," approach to political philosophy, and we all know how it turned out: tyranny. When the status quo is unacceptable -- and I think more or less everyone here agrees it is -- obstructionist political philosophy is not what one ought to be embracing. It doesn't need to be easier to spend more money or make more laws? Well should it be harder to spend less money? Should it be harder to reform the complexity of tax law? Because those changes use the same legislative framework, and systematic obstruction hinders them just as much (if not more, since such reforms are generally broad and systematic in nature, and thus much more likely to earn filibuster-inducing ire).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bucheon bum



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: DC area

PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 7:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fox wrote:
You know who ought to have veto authority? The President of the United States.

You know who oughtn't have veto authority? 41 Senators.

People talking about how it needs to be harder to pass laws (or shouldn't be any easier) are completely wrong-headed on this issue. A law already has four potential hurdles:

1) Passing the House
2) Passing the Senate
3) Avoiding Presidential Veto or Requiring Super-majority Legislative Support
4) Avoiding Elimination by Judicial Review

De facto veto authority is not something we need to hand to a 41% minority of Senators; those elected to govern need to be able to actually govern. It's not even just about laws: minority senators regularly block judicial appointments, for example, something which has been a huge act of obstruction under Obama in particular.

Filibusters ought to exist, but only in a very limited capacity; it ought to require a filibustering senator to stand on the floor and talk, continuously, for as long as he wishes to filibuster. And if the next senator wants to swap out and continue to talk, that's fine. "We are now entering the tenth day of Senate Republicans continually talking on the debate floor to filibuster," is how a filibuster headline ought to read. It needs to require more effort than a text message, and that effort needs to be both continual and prone to eventual failure, holding back a bad idea long enough for the public to fully understand why it's bad and express their contempt, not simply to quietly veto something you personally disagree with. It needs to be a serious sacrifice of time and effort to ensure it is utilized only in the face of genuinely important issues: if you can't envision spending the next few weeks of your life talking continually, every day, on the Senate floor, you don't care enough to justify a filibuster.

Rome tried the whole, "Let's turn our primary legislative body into an obstructionist mess," approach to political philosophy, and we all know how it turned out: tyranny. When the status quo is unacceptable -- and I think more or less everyone here agrees it is -- obstructionist political philosophy is not what one ought to be embracing. It doesn't need to be easier to spend more money or make more laws? Well should it be harder to spend less money? Should it be harder to reform the complexity of tax law? Because those changes use the same legislative framework, and systematic obstruction hinders them just as much (if not more, since such reforms are generally broad and systematic in nature, and thus much more likely to earn filibuster-inducing ire).


Thank you voice of reason.

Quote:
Put me square in Comm's conrner on this. We don't need to make laws or spend money any easier than we can now. In fact, I'd be for getting rid of the filibuster (waste of time) and just saying nothing gets out of committe and nothing passes into law without a 60% super-majority. If you can't get 60 Senators to agree on something than maybe it is flawed. And, if politics get in the way then we need to change our politics or do nothing.


You and comm seem to think Congress is prolific with passing bills and making new laws. This might sound snarky, but it is an honest question: what gives you that idea??

And getting 60% of people to agree on a policy is quite difficult even with groups that don't consist of a range of opinions ranging from Coburn of Oklahoma to Sanders of Vermont. The prime example would be California, which has been plagued by inertia in its state legislature due to its 2/3s requirement for passing a budget and tax raises (although I think the budget requirement was finally eliminated a year or two ago).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 4:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
We don't need to make laws or spend money any easier than we can now. In fact, I'd be for getting rid of the filibuster (waste of time) and just saying nothing gets out of committe and nothing passes into law without a 60% super-majority.


If you want an unadulterated supermajority, amend the Constitution.

As it stands, bills must pass majorities in two chambers. The first represents the raw popular sentiment, supposedly. The Senate reflects the interests of States as equals, Rhode Island possessing all the clout of California. I really think that represents minority interests enough.

Quote:
If you can't get 60 Senators to agree on something than maybe it is flawed.


Or maybe its just too lean on pork for some handful of 'centrists'.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Ya-ta Boy



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2012 7:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here's a presentation by Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa for his preferred version of filibuster reform:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/50182699#50168493


He wants 3 days between, while I favor about 6 seconds, but his plan at least leans in the right direction.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2013 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International