The Latest Bright Idea from the Left. Hey, Let's End the Filibuster!

[andymays]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/23/AR2009122301319.html

Excerpt:

That letter would never be written now. In today's Senate, 55 votes isn't enough to "win," or anything close to it; it's enough to get you five votes away from the 60 votes you need to shut down a filibuster. Only then, in most cases, can a law be passed. The modern Senate is a radically different institution than the Senate of the 1960s, and the dysfunction exhibited in its debate over health care -- the absence of bipartisanship, the use of the filibuster to obstruct progress rather than protect debate, the ability of any given senator to hold the bill hostage to his or her demands -- has convinced many, both inside and outside the chamber, that it needs to be fixed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's funny how things change when you have the majority. ;) :D

[lamboguy]

this whole health care bill is the weirdest thing i have ever seen. there was not one republican vote for it, even though this bill was the spitting image of the massachusetts healthcare reform bill designed by republican conservetive himself mitt romney. after romney pushed the massachusetts bill he ran for the republican nomination for president. his main contributors to his campagn were insurance company's that specialise in healthcare and hospitals and medical association's that benefit from people stuck paying for this rotten healthcare to begin with.

from what i can see, most people that have read this bill don't like it, so now the republican's come out publically on the side of the people knowing that the bill was going to pass from the git go. the framework of the bill starts in the year 2014 when barack obama will be long gone and some repulican will be the boss. there is no chance that this rotten bill ever gets reversed, and now the public will be on their knees while they are getting fleeced.

[Overlay]

this whole health care bill is the weirdest thing i have ever seen. there was not one republican vote for it, even though this bill was the spitting image of the massachusetts healthcare reform bill designed by republican conservetive himself mitt romney. after romney pushed the massachusetts bill he ran for the republican nomination for president. his main contributors to his campagn were insurance company's that specialise in healthcare and hospitals and medical association's that benefit from people stuck paying for this rotten healthcare to begin with.

And the Republicans didn't nominate Romney either, did they? The main function of the united Republican opposition in the Senate is that people will know who gets the "credit" for this bill, one way or the other.

[Overlay]

That letter would never be written now. In today's Senate, 55 votes isn't enough to "win," or anything close to it; it's enough to get you five votes away from the 60 votes you need to shut down a filibuster. Only then, in most cases, can a law be passed. The modern Senate is a radically different institution than the Senate of the 1960s....

Things certainly are different than in the 1960's. Back then, it took a 2/3 majority (67 votes) to end a filibuster. The Democrats lowered the bar to 60 in 1975 (undoubtedly in anticipation/dread of the election of 1980 that would give the Republicans control of the Senate for the first time in thirty years), and they now want to reduce it even further.

[lamboguy]

And the Republicans didn't nominate Romney either, did they? The main function of the united Republican opposition in the Senate is that people will know who gets the "credit" for this bill, one way or the other.that's for damn sure!

in mass. the state is now sueing the insurance company's for not providing good coverage. another words more smoking mirrors to get more money out of you

in mass. auto insurance is compulsory like in most sttes for body liability coverage. even if you want to post a bond, or assign certificate of deposits for the minimum amount of coverage that you want the state will not allow it. if you don't owe a morgage you don't have to carry homeowners insurance. with healthcare and car insurance you must make the insurance company more money, its the law here.

there was nothing wrong with health care the way it was, just that the insurance company's and doctor's weren't getting our money fast enough. your average emergency room visit that last's 15 minutes no cost $1300.

[andymays]

Why the Filibuster Is More Essential Now Than Ever

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2009/12/why_the_filibuster_is_more_ess_1.html

Excerpt:

Ezra Klein had a provocative column in Sunday's Washington Post, arguing that it's time to eliminate or substantially weaken the filibuster in the United States Senate.

He writes:

The modern Senate is a radically different institution than the Senate of the 1960s, and the dysfunction exhibited in its debate over health care -- the absence of bipartisanship, the use of the filibuster to obstruct progress rather than protect debate, the ability of any given senator to hold the bill hostage to his or her demands -- has convinced many, both inside and outside the chamber, that it needs to be fixed.

Klein cites a study from Barbara Sinclair showing that the filibuster is used much more frequently now - up from 8% of "major bills" to 70%. This is as sure a sign as any that reform is needed, that the two parties can't be allowed to succeed by using the politics of obstruction anymore.

[Overlay]

This is as sure a sign as any that reform is needed, that the two parties can't be allowed to succeed by using the politics of obstruction anymore.

Your last sentence above (which I am interpreting as your own words/thoughts) confuses me. Are you equating the use of the filibuster with the "politics of obstruction", and saying that that is why reform of the filibuster is needed. The title that you gave to this thread, as well as your opening post, seemed to be critical of the Democrats' efforts to lower the number of votes needed for cloture.

[andymays]

Your last sentence above (which I am interpreting as your own words/thoughts) confuses me. Are you equating the use of the filibuster with the "politics of obstruction", and saying that that is why reform of the filibuster is needed. The title that you gave to this thread, as well as your opening post, seemed to be critical of the Democrats' efforts to lower the number of votes needed for cloture.


All that is from the article. The reason the middle is in italics is that the author was referencing another article.

So to unravel the mess it is Jay Cost referencing an article by Ezra Klein.

Jay Cost of Real Clear Politics.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2009/12/why_the_filibuster_is_more_ess_1.html

Ezra Klein of the Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/23/AR2009122301319.html

[Overlay]

Thanks for the clarification.

[andymays]

Thanks for the clarification.


My fault for posting it that way.

[andymays]

The Filibuster, Now More Than Ever?

http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/29/the-filibuster-now-more-than-ever/

Excerpt:

While liberal pundits — and a few liberal Senators — crusade against the filibuster, Jay Cost rises to its defense. His argument turns the usual case against the filibuster on its head: While critics charge that the rise of filibustering is the fruit of a poisonous polarization, Cost argues that supermajority requirements are actually our best protection against polarization run amok.

The filibuster “is indeed an obstructionist tool,” he writes, “but it is also a way to promote moderate policies, even as the parties have become more ideologically extreme.” In the absence of a filibuster, a polarized political system would produce wild policymaking swings, with Al Franken writing legislation one session and Jim DeMint writing it the next. Its presence requires even the most ideologically-charged majority to cut some deals before it rams legislation through. If we “get rid of the filibuster to facilitate legislative policymaking,” Cost concludes, “we should brace ourselves for ideologically polarizing laws that will leave a third to a half of the country deeply unsatisfied.”

[exactaplayer]

Things certainly are different than in the 1960's. Back then, it took a 2/3 majority (67 votes) to end a filibuster. The Democrats lowered the bar to 60 in 1975 (undoubtedly in anticipation/dread of the election of 1980 that would give the Republicans control of the Senate for the first time in thirty years), and they now want to reduce it even further.
I am curious. Why would the Democrats want to make it easier to stop a filibuster if they knew they were going to be in the minority and the filibuster would be their most effective weapon ?

[Overlay]

I am curious. Why would the Democrats want to make it easier to stop a filibuster if they knew they were going to be in the minority and the filibuster would be their most effective weapon ?

They changed the rules while they still had the votes to do so. Even if the Republicans were on the verge of coming to power in the Senate at that time, the Democrats knew that the change would work to their future advantage at such time as they would regain control (which they did, in the 1986 election).

[skate]

this whole health care bill is the weirdest thing i have ever seen. there was not one republican vote for it, even though this bill was the spitting image of the massachusetts healthcare reform bill designed by republican conservetive himself mitt romney. after romney pushed the massachusetts bill he ran for the republican nomination for president. his main contributors to his campagn were insurance company's that specialise in healthcare and hospitals and medical association's that benefit from people stuck paying for this rotten healthcare to begin with.

from what i can see, most people that have read this bill don't like it, so now the republican's come out publically on the side of the people knowing that the bill was going to pass from the git go. the framework of the bill starts in the year 2014 when barack obama will be long gone and some repulican will be the boss. there is no chance that this rotten bill ever gets reversed, and now the public will be on their knees while they are getting fleeced.

System Does Not work in Mass. either, simple, need go no futher.

As a mater of fact, maybe that's what M R had in mind. He gave a us a chance to see results beforehabd. Picked a good state also.;)

[exactaplayer]

They changed the rules while they still had the votes to do so. Even if the Republicans were on the verge of coming to power in the Senate at that time, the Democrats knew that the change would work to their future advantage at such time as they would regain control (which they did, in the 1986 election).
So the Democrats were planning ahead. A novel thought for a politician. Hmmm ?

[Tom]

TWO new things at once - planning and ahead.