When the hell will we take the damned FILIBUSTER away from the GOP!!!???

[Kablooie]

The senate votes 59 to 41 on an issue and the **41** wins!!

What the fuck is this?
This is not a democracy anymore.
A majority vote means nothing. NOTHING!!!

The country is in one of the worst crisis situations in our history and we allow the self interested minority to make all the decisions.

The filibuster is destroying America.
If this 'weapon of mass destruction' is not taken away from the GOP our country is going to die and if this is how we define 'democracy', the country probably deserves to die.

[Goblinmonger]

1. I have a problem with short-term memory

We liked the filibuster when the Repubs were in power and many, myself included, wished they would have used it more. Now that we are in power, we want it gone? We sound like the Republicans 6 years ago.

I think we need to go to the old rules. If you want to filibuster, then you better clear your bowels, dehydrate yourself so you don't have to piss, and get your ass up there and keep talking if you want to filibuster. This "well, we filibuster" option is just too damn easy. If Strom Thurman can muster the will power to filibuster, then everyone else should.

[sandnsea]

7. I know, I don't get it

I don't really care what the filibuster rule is, only that people are able to be objective about it.

[Birdiesmom]

11. Actually, how many times did we actually

filibuster under Bush?

Seems that if we aren't going to use it, then we should take it away from the GOP as well.

[jp11]

12. If only it went back to that, if you want to filibuster

then you should have to do it like that, for either side.

[Kablooie]

13. No. It was never used like now. It was used with restraint.

Something must be done so it can't be so easily invoked on a whim for every single issue.

[Goblinmonger]

17. Don't you think going back to the old way of filibustering would help

You have to keep talking. Old school. Look like a dick on CSPAN if you are going to filibuster.

[Kablooie]

26. Yes. Require a public effort to filibuster and I'll bet it wouldn't be so popular.

Right now they only have to threaten to filibuster and the bill is killed.
Essentially the majority is kowtowing to the minority in the current system.

[rurallib]

2. I regret that I can only recommend once.

The most frustrating thing is that Democrats get the blame for nothing being done instead of Republicans

[Cant trust em]

3. How can we take it away from the GOP without taking it away from ourselves

when we're in the minority some day?

Sooner or later the republicans are going to be in power again. At that point if the filibuster is gone, then how will we have any power?

[librechik]

22. we don't use the power when we have it. The Pukkkes are the only ones who delight in the filibuster

We don't use it because we think its cheating (or because we're afraid of retribution.)

Take it away! It's wrong!

[treestar]

4. Surely the Republicans say the same thing when they are in power

and I am not defending it; it seems to be a way of letting the minority get in the way. but it is not insane to worry about what the Republicans might get through their Congresses. What might we be living with now if not for the filibuster?

[Obamanaut]

5. DUer Grantcart has a good post in another thread - link in msg box

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=8626636#8626773

[DrDan]

6. we also lose it when we take it away . . . be careful what you wish for

[AnArmyVeteran]

15. Why? Republicans crammed everything through with smaller majorities under Bush.

A majority isn't 60 votes. It's 51 in the senate, or if there is a tie then the VP makes the deciding vote. Under Bush, democrats caved into him all the time even giving him the authority to go to war against a non-existent enemy. Anyone with an IQ over 70 knows that Iraq had no capability to attack the US, but democrats in congress just sat on their hands and kept their mouths shut while people in the Bush Regime said Iraq could attack us "within 45 minutes in the form of a mushroom cloud". They let lie after lie go unchecked almost as if they were members of the opposite party. If it will take 60 votes to pass anything our country is doomed. Nothing will ever get done.

And what gets me is the leadership in the senate isn't even forcing republicans to actually filibuster. Why are they caving into the right so easily? I believe Harry Reid needs to be replaced with someone with guts and who knows how to lead. To allow the republicans to filibuster without actually even showing up is inexcusable. No real leader would allow such nonsense. A real leader would force the opposition to stand up and actually filibuster for days or weeks. But the democratic leadership is doing nothing but playing lapdog to the minority. It is beyond belief and it is allowing our country to be destroyed.

This isn't the change I worked my ass off for.

[lumberjack_jeff]

8. Better plan: make 'em pay politically for using it.

Pass populist law and force them to filibuster against granny.

[Llewlladdwr]

9. This assumes the Democrats are interested in passing any populist laws...NT

[DirkGently]

10. Agreed. This is absurd

Regardless of Democrats' supposed desire to use it later, this current nonsense where a simple majority, which is the BASIS ON WHICH OUR LAWS ARE TO BE MADE is meaningless, cannot stand.

[Democat]

14. As long as Democrats use the filibuster as much as the GOP, it's no problem.

But, of course, Democrats never use it when they have a chance.

How often did Democrats use it against Bush?

Not very often.

Why?

Because they are cowards.

[Kablooie]

16. It can be frivolously invoked on a whim in current rules. It was supposed to take effort to use.

[Jennicut]

18. I think you need 67 votes right now. At the beginning of a new session of Congress do we need only

51 votes? We won't get 67 but we could get 51. I think the filibuster should not be removed completely but should be something like Harkin's proposal.

"Under the Harkin proposal, the first vote for cloture (the term for ending a filibuster) would require 60 votes, as is current practice. But after a few days had passed, cloture would only require 57 votes. After a few more days, it would require 54, and so on. Eventually a bare majority of 51 votes would be enough." http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0212/Bill-to...

[Statistical]

21. The Harkin proposal seems like good conpromise.

Prevents rapidly passing something without overwhelming support while freezing bills forever with only 59 votes.

[Kablooie]

19. Actually the GOP only THREATENS to filibuster. When was the last real filibuster required?

[Festivito]

20. Gee, why is the media not covering the filibusters the way the did before?

Those Dems were obstructionists. All the media pushed it. Radio. TV. Cable. Newspapers.

But, when the Repubs do the same thing: SILENCE. Not even reporting the statistics that more filibusters were done in that early time than in the sum of our nation's history unless buried deep in text or juxtapositioned by something else diminishing its importance. But, mostly...

Silence.

[Sebastian Doyle]

23. We would need Senate leadership with a spine in order to do that.

Not cowards like Harry Reid or Tom Daschle. :puke:

[zorahopkins]

24. Majority Should Be Able To Rule

It is just ridiculous that, in the Senate, the minority can hold up action on something the majority wants.

The filibuster rule has to go! NOW!

[SoCalNative]

25. It never was a Democracy

we are and always have been a representative republic.

[Kablooie]

27. Ah, that explains why REPUBLICans have so much power and DEMOCRATs don't.

Though one might argue that we are actually a theocratic oligarchy.