General Discussion

HereSince1628

(36,063 posts)

4. Just making it more difficult to use would be OK with me.

Reply to still_one (Original post)

Mon Nov 5, 2012, 09:43 AM

Nov 2012

It's clearly way too easy for lazy obstructionists to use to abuse.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

73 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

if we win the senate, get rid of the filibuster harry reid [View all] still_one Nov 2012 OP

Either Reid gets rid of the filibuster or he should be removed as Maj. Leader. BlueCaliDem Nov 2012 #1

Filibuster catfish57 Nov 2012 #13

No. The House got rid of theirs in the late 1800's and have been faring BlueCaliDem Nov 2012 #20

Or, make the Senators actually stand at the podium and speak (filibuster). nt SDjack Nov 2012 #24

Unfortunately, under the filibuster rule BlueCaliDem Nov 2012 #36

Archaic rules can be modernized -- even the US Senate is now illuminated with SDjack Nov 2012 #68

In order for that to happen, they'll have to update the filibuster rule and vote BlueCaliDem Nov 2012 #72

That's when a group of the younger dems grab him and throw him out of the room. Sirveri Nov 2012 #73

Filibuster process catfish57 Nov 2012 #37

That's never been required. People who did it, did it because it was politically popular Recursion Nov 2012 #58

The sad thing is... moose65 Nov 2012 #26

I agree Plucketeer Nov 2012 #56

Problem is... kag Nov 2012 #34

What makes you think Republicans won't do away with it on day one if they gain power? Spitfire of ATJ Nov 2012 #48

totally agree with BlueCaliDem Euphoria Nov 2012 #28

Absolutely. Enough is enough. AtomicKitten Nov 2012 #2

K&R libtodeath Nov 2012 #3

It would be a shocker if we keep the House. BlueCaliDem Nov 2012 #23

Just making it more difficult to use would be OK with me. HereSince1628 Nov 2012 #4

Definitely. There is some validity to the idea of the Senate being "more deliberative" BlueStreak Nov 2012 #67

Filibuster rtracey Nov 2012 #5

What makes you think Sen Reid will listen now when he hasnt to this point? nm rhett o rick Nov 2012 #9

There is no, and has never been, a filibuster in the House. longship Nov 2012 #14

There *was* a filibuster rule in the House. BlueCaliDem Nov 2012 #27

I stand corrected. longship Nov 2012 #38

The filibuster was created by Aaron Burr and its use to stop legislation was purely uintentional. gordianot Nov 2012 #15

The Senate will have to make provisions for clubholders and caneholders to be installed Buns_of_Fire Nov 2012 #63

They could use bags of cash to thump each other limited to $10.00 bills in memory of Hamilton. gordianot Nov 2012 #64

Just the Senate moose65 Nov 2012 #22

Agreed... Volaris Nov 2012 #6

Reid is a dog. Hope he gets hos head straight... MuhkRahker Nov 2012 #7

Please clarify. Dump Reid or the filibuster? or both? nm rhett o rick Nov 2012 #8

It is Real Easy to Change the Filibuster. PuppyBismark Nov 2012 #10

I like it!!! Stevepol Nov 2012 #12

51 is what I grew up with. nt silvershadow Nov 2012 #31

That's too easy soryang Nov 2012 #46

That's not entirely clear; the Senate is a continuous body Recursion Nov 2012 #59

The Dems will be keeping the Senate. I have no doubt about that. Daayyummmboi Nov 2012 #11

And the next time we have Republicans in power, we will die due to lack of a filibuster. MadHound Nov 2012 #16

Probably a good idea to keep a watered down filibuster for legislation, but scrap it for judges. nt geek tragedy Nov 2012 #19

No. No, no, no, no. MadHound Nov 2012 #21

We wind up with them anyways. Obama will be President and benefit from the geek tragedy Nov 2012 #30

No, you're cutting off your nose to spite your face, MadHound Nov 2012 #32

I would rather get things done when we're in power than fear what might happen if we lose power LonePirate Nov 2012 #33

And thus, when 'Pugs get into power, they can rip out everything that was done, MadHound Nov 2012 #42

The current rethugs would change it in a heart beat! PuppyBismark Nov 2012 #43

Get rid of it for executive and judicial appointments, keep it for legislation. geek tragedy Nov 2012 #17

The only reason Joe Lieberman's cyber-security bill which violates privacy didn't pass Eric J in MN Nov 2012 #18

I say make a filibuster a filibuster. Make them stand there and talk. It was ridiculous when SWTORFanatic Nov 2012 #25

I think the secret holds should be done away with as well AndyA Nov 2012 #29

Make them watch Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. raouldukelives Nov 2012 #35

unless Dems take the house too i don't see the point nt michael811 Nov 2012 #39

All appointments by the President only need concurrance from the Senate, the House has no say. PuppyBismark Nov 2012 #45

Amen to that n/t Horse with no Name Nov 2012 #40

Why wait??? Reps havn't controlled the senate since 2006 nt One_Life_To_Give Nov 2012 #41

Actually plantwomyn Nov 2012 #50

Ted Kennedy died 49 days after Franken was sworn in. His last vote was months before that. ieoeja Nov 2012 #60

I agree. Doesn't matter if we lose control at some point in the future... NYC Liberal Nov 2012 #44

While I don't particularly care about the system, this is way too dangerous. -nt- DireStrike Nov 2012 #47

It is way too dangerous if we have four years of republican obstructionism still_one Nov 2012 #49

I don't know... I rather something else. Xyzse Nov 2012 #51

What Is Being Overlooked Here 1ProudAtheist Nov 2012 #52

exactly, that is why the keeping the "tradition" arguments are nonsense still_one Nov 2012 #54

Not. Gonna. Happen. 99Forever Nov 2012 #53

I have discussed this with him personally... brooklynite Nov 2012 #55

Why? lumberjack_jeff Nov 2012 #57

Sen. Maria Cantwell Confirmed in Rally Yesterday... Filibuster on Chopping Block sally5050 Nov 2012 #61

excellent still_one Nov 2012 #62

Just imagine a co equal branch of legislation amazing. gordianot Nov 2012 #65

Just imagine sally5050 Nov 2012 #66

Keep the filibuster with this change.... Liberal Veteran Nov 2012 #69

Oh Noooooo.... sally5050 Nov 2012 #70

For 200 years we've had the right to extended debate [i.e., filibuster]. hughee99 Nov 2012 #71