DescentBB

I heard a report on television yesterday about some Republicans proposing that we change the rules in the Senate so that simple majorities can get more done.

!@#$! idiots. We need to drag those fools into a closet somewhere and give them a good beating.

There are IMPORTANT REASONS why our founding fathers enshrined so many checks and balances into our system. My reply to that proposal is H3LL NO. All it will end up doing is giving the Donkey Party carte blanche to screw up our country, the next time the Senate swings their way. And it will, some day, maybe even some day soon.


The Senate needs to keep its current rules, perhaps with the exception of allowing filibusters to prevent judicial nominations from getting out of committee. THAT option has been abused lately and was clearly not intended by the founding fathers, who expressly stated that judges should be moved on a straight majority. But any talk of doing away with super majority thresholds in general would be catastrophic if enacted.

The only way one party in Congress can earn that much power is to win sixty percent of the seats outright. If you can't do that, you have no business ignoring what the opposition party has to say.


- Sirian

The Filibuster was enshrined in the constitution for a reason. That reason was to keep the majority in power from being able to have a runaway agenda in the senate like they can in the house. Since most major decisions go through the senate at one point or another, it ensures that the majority party has to slow down and think for a bit before trying to get legislation that may or may not have been rushed through the house to get through the senate.

Regarding the judicial nominations, I'm quite sure that one day if the democrats control the senate with a democratic president in power, the republicans will quickly understand and appreciate the filibusters ability to impede confirmation. Its a vital check on power. The Veto power was almost taboo when the country first started running under the constitution, and it was considered abuse to use it at all. Well, like most things in there, it was put in there with some good reasons behind it, and so was the filibuster.

If the president in power cannot find someone to nominate that a supermajority can agree with, that president needs to look harder instead of trying to fit the square piece through the circle hole (I loved that "We'll make it fit!" commercial from back in the day. Remember that one?).

So yes, Stupid Republicans. Deal with the dems and get your supermajorities. It cant be THAT hard tofind some moderates.

Yeah, I agree stupid Republicans. This is a perfect illustration of the first half of Jane's Law (the Democrats meanwhile have been busy proving the second half true, but thats beside the point).

However, the filibuster rules (which are NOT enshrined in the Constitution - they are an outgrowth of the Senate's rules for how they go about implementing the Constitution) should go back to the way they were intended. If you wan't to filibuster you should have to work for it (i.e. you have to take the floor and keep spouting off as long as you can stay awake). The current rules make it waaaay too easy. All they have to do now is just announce they want to filibuster.

Avder wrote:The Filibuster was enshrined in the constitution for a reason. That reason was to keep the majority in power from being able to have a runaway agenda in the senate like they can in the house.

That is incorrect. I refer you to The Constitution of the United States of America


Here I quote the relevant clause:

Article. II.

Section. 2.

Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.


The intent is clear and unmistakeable. Advice and Consent of the Senate means a straight majority, Avder.

Note that this clause provides the same thing for Ambassadors and Ministers. Cabinet ministers must be approved by the Senate, as must Ambassadors.


The Republicans to whom I referred earlier may be stupid, but the Democrats to whom I am referring now are unfaithful -- unfaithful to their sacred oaths of office for the sole sake of political expediency. They are abusing their power, exploiting a loophole in the Senate procedures as currently written, with the express intent of THWARTING the US Constitution.

That will be stopped. Either the Democrats will reign in that behavior, or the people will reign in these rogue Senators. Mark my words.


- Sirian

Sirians right in my opinion.
The republicans need to short circut the filibuster as a tool stop the appointment of judges *without* changing the way the system is now.

They are stupid and short sighted to weaken the system just to make their goals easier to attain...WTF? are they turning into liberals now?

I think we've finally found a topic on which all DBB members can agree! This is so obviously a bad idea, you've got to wonder if the TV report that Sirian saw was a bit premature or inaccurate?

EDIT: Otherone's link to Jane's article is great. It shows that each party is or has been guilty of following each part of Jane's law. Some nice perspective.