Can we stop calling the US Senate a "deliberative body"

[Proud Liberal Dem]

considering that it's they aren't allowed to DELIBERATE about much of anything?

Seriously, I get that Republicans don't want to do most of the things that the Democrats in the Senate want to do but if they are so convinced of the superiority of their ideas and beliefs, why can't they have the fortitude to stand up for them in an actual DEBATE? If they were truly on the right side of an issue, they shouldn't have too much difficulty convincing 51 people of the rightness of their position, right? I don't understand why the people who support the legislation shouldn't have the right to argue for it and have an equal chance to convince a majority of the Senate to adopt the bill?

It seems like Republicans either get what they want, Democrats attempt to gather up SIXTY votes for just a freakin' debate/vote, or the Republicans just get to shut everything down. I understand the need to preserve the voice of the minority but "reasonable" left the train station years ago..........

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

1. Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.

Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

[Scuba]

2. How about "rotting corpse"?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

5. That works too

[merrily]

3. Whose bright idea was the fake filibuster, I wonder.

I don't think the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would have passed if all they had to do to bring everything to a halt was give notice of filibuster.

Same thing for the one person hold. Who's bright idea was that?

Does anyone know?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

4. The filibustering would go away (or severely diminish)

if they had to get up on the floor and talk in order to maintain a filibuster. I'm o.k. with a filibuster provided that it isn't allowed to hold things up indefinitely. I sort of like proposals that make it so that it becomes harder and harder to sustain over a period of time- so that people have to do a little work to sustain one. This would allow the minority to slow down the process and potentially rally people to their side but would also (eventually) allow for a vote.

[merrily]

6. Exactly.

I think I read or heard somewhere that the Civil Rights filibuster lasted 24 hours, but that was desperately important to the South (only God knows why, but it was), reversing a century of Jim Crow and a centuries old delusion that whites were superior. But, after 24 hours, the filibuster did end.

The fake ones never end. Screw whoever thought that up and anyone who voted for it. The one person hold as well. They think the Senate should run for the purpose of getting them re-elected until they keel over. Makes me mad.