Latest Breaking News

Autumn

(48,965 posts)

4. That would have been nice in 2009. But now?

Reply to DonViejo (Original post)

Mon Feb 9, 2015, 11:52 AM

Feb 2015

Wow, that's real treat.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

106 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Obama: Eliminate The Senate Filibuster [View all] DonViejo Feb 2015 OP

Harry Reid was in favor of keeping it and Democrats just recently used it PoliticAverse Feb 2015 #1

Uh...remove the filibuster *now*? Now that the Republicans control the Senate?? BlueCaliDem Feb 2015 #2

My first thought as well fredamae Feb 2015 #5

ditto GeorgeGist Feb 2015 #14

Ditto. And I am not interested in any theories about 3 dimensional chess. He's undermining GoneFishin Feb 2015 #83

Yes, do it now. thesquanderer Feb 2015 #13

I don't understand your reasoning. So you believe filibuster reform can only happen when the Party BlueCaliDem Feb 2015 #18

There would have to be debate, open debate lasting several days....and still 67 votes to override veto. Fred Sanders Feb 2015 #39

It takes a majority to change the rules. jeff47 Feb 2015 #50

A good explanation and plausible scenario. Thanks, jeff47. eom BlueCaliDem Feb 2015 #51

I disagree. It should have been eliminated in 2009. To do it now rhett o rick Feb 2015 #29

Stop the Filibuster oldlib2 Feb 2015 #78

incredible timing. If Dems had done this in Obama's first two years.. yurbud Feb 2015 #22

Is that what he meant by transparency in government? Jackpine Radical Feb 2015 #28

Ouch! Apparently so yurbud Feb 2015 #80

Of course. After six years of disappointment, you still think Obama is a democrat? PSPS Feb 2015 #35

Yes. No doubt about it. eom BlueCaliDem Feb 2015 #37

My thoughts too. zeemike Feb 2015 #53

11-dimensional chess, bay-bee! We "win," by losing... blkmusclmachine Feb 2015 #64

Excellent! Octafish Feb 2015 #82

He actually called for eliminating the "routine use" of the filibuster. I agree that his choice of words pnwmom Feb 2015 #87

You're correct. He clearly stated that they should BlueCaliDem Feb 2015 #92

WTF? Over rhett o rick Feb 2015 #3

That would have been nice in 2009. But now? Autumn Feb 2015 #4

Hey, didn't Manny get a lot of flack when he made this same suggestion? rhett o rick Feb 2015 #6

Revert to the rules we had before filibuster "reform" in 1975 MannyGoldstein Feb 2015 #26

Notthat it's a big deal, but I noticed you had more valentines then me, rhett o rick Feb 2015 #34

Five minutes after Republicans won Congress bigger than they have since 1928, no less. merrily Feb 2015 #42

Filibuster is one thing. Sixty vote cloture rule is another. merrily Feb 2015 #54

NOW? annabanana Feb 2015 #7

Obama, of all people, pitching ending the filibuster now that gop controls the senate. Dont call me Shirley Feb 2015 #8

lol I posted one minute after you! Johnyawl Feb 2015 #10

Good insight MannyGoldstein Feb 2015 #24

OMG, that's it. Jackpine Radical Feb 2015 #33

It takes one vote. Fred Sanders Feb 2015 #45

He did NOT call for ending the filibuster. pnwmom Feb 2015 #88

You are correct. We must ensure the filibuster will not be crippled for the Democrats to use, Dont call me Shirley Feb 2015 #91

Sounds like he's worried about fast tracking his trade bills... Johnyawl Feb 2015 #9

One word to Dems on TPP and fast track:FILIBUSTER! Dont call me Shirley Feb 2015 #11

YES! And any bi-partisan "grand bargain" on Social Security. Johnyawl Feb 2015 #15

PLUS INFINITY! cascadiance Feb 2015 #20

Yep! n/t n2doc Feb 2015 #19

We NEED to FILIBUSTER the "FAST TRACK". This is a horrible time to talk about eliminating the Faryn Balyncd Feb 2015 #81

Ur foot. U shots it. mwooldri Feb 2015 #12

Except Republican's definition of "horrible legislation" is not the same as yours. jeff47 Feb 2015 #17

It always cuts against a majority of voters these days, though. merrily Feb 2015 #44

The 60 vote rule is not in the constitution. It's mostly a Senate job protection rule. merrily Feb 2015 #40

The filibuster is just a legislative rule. Like a single "hold" on legislation like the VA Act. Fred Sanders Feb 2015 #41

Just invert it instead. jeff47 Feb 2015 #16

isn't obama's timing wrong? samsingh Feb 2015 #21

That depends on what his goals are. TPP? Fast-Track Authority? His timing might be perfect. n/t xocet Feb 2015 #31

Be careful what you wish for, PBO meow2u3 Feb 2015 #23

Funny he didn't ask for that when Democrats held the Senate. I guess if Republicans had .... Scuba Feb 2015 #25

MR SMITH Filibuster djnicadress Feb 2015 #27

Why, in a democracy, does the minority have to have some way to stop the majority? merrily Feb 2015 #46

Passage of Proposition 8 didn't answer that question for you? msanthrope Feb 2015 #55

Um no. Filibuster, or rather, the 60 vote rule, is not about the minority asking for redress. merrily Feb 2015 #57

Original intent of filibuster was to keep in check minority population majority in senate... cascadiance Feb 2015 #62

For one thing, your analysis (which sounds like that of No Labels, btw) omits the House entirely. merrily Feb 2015 #63

The one time that the filibuster seems to have merit is NOW, when TPP fast tracking is going through cascadiance Feb 2015 #65

Requiring a supermajority vote for cloture is the issue, not filibustering per se. merrily Feb 2015 #66

I think if enough of us call our senators, we can get enough to do a filibuster... cascadiance Feb 2015 #67

In your opinion, when was the last time calls and emails got Senators to change their votes? merrily Feb 2015 #68

FDR was pushed in to doing a lot of the reforms he did by movement politics... cascadiance Feb 2015 #72

Making up facts do not help your cause. Truthteller3562 Feb 2015 #96

Your link appears to be limited to elections that took place in 2014. arcane1 Feb 2015 #97

"in the House" Truthteller3562 Feb 2015 #104

I didn't specify a year... In 2012, Republicans won when the Democrats got a majority of votes cascadiance Feb 2015 #98

You are corrrect Truthteller3562 Feb 2015 #103

And looking at the raw numbers quoted by yours and 2012 article there was a drop in turnout... cascadiance Feb 2015 #105

Wow! Obama and the GOP really want that Fast Track, don't they? n/t djean111 Feb 2015 #30

Bingo! Mnpaul Feb 2015 #79

Maybe Obama is trying to get McConnell's head to explode. If Obama suggests it first rhett o rick Feb 2015 #32

They don't have to continue disagreeing with him now that they are in the majority. merrily Feb 2015 #48

Wow. Really bad timing. HERVEPA Feb 2015 #36

A day late and a dollar short. forest444 Feb 2015 #52

No. What's needed, as someone else has already said, SheilaT Feb 2015 #38

Obama still has the veto pen, any law requires Senate 67 votes to be law. Fred Sanders Feb 2015 #43

No. It does not take 67 votes to pass a law in the Senate. It takes a simple SheilaT Feb 2015 #60

67 votes to be law if Obama returns a bill, not yet a law, to the Senate within 10 days, as not approved. Fred Sanders Feb 2015 #101

And how often has that happened so far in Obama's time as President? SheilaT Feb 2015 #106

Please see Replies 40 and 44. For me, hoping media makes Republicans look bad is not enough. merrily Feb 2015 #49

I fought against this in 2005 Omaha Steve Feb 2015 #47

I think people here needs to see the strategy behind this adieu Feb 2015 #56

Eliminating the 60 vote rule in 2009 would have made Democrats look bad? To WHOM? merrily Feb 2015 #58

Gerrymandering doesn't affect adieu Feb 2015 #73

? My post didn't say gerrymandering affected Senatorial races. Also, IMO, the GOP will not focus on merrily Feb 2015 #75

Really? adieu Feb 2015 #76

Yes, really. They have not repealed Obamacare, even once. IMO, all their feints at merrily Feb 2015 #86

Sorry, Don't Buy This Strategy raindaddy Feb 2015 #59

Nonsense. I don't buy this argument at all. GoneFishin Feb 2015 #84

Very good points treestar Feb 2015 #61

Yet, he proposes it. Why? A fondness for wasting his breath? merrily Feb 2015 #70

He's explaining the past. treestar Feb 2015 #85

Fast Track Authority is the ANTI-filibuster which wants a simple majority to pass treaties... cascadiance Feb 2015 #69

Now? Kinda begs the question... dreamnightwind Feb 2015 #71

Pres.Obama needs more 'legacy' quadrature Feb 2015 #74

If wishes were horses...Good luck with that. trof Feb 2015 #77

Eliminating the Filibuster NOW... nikto Feb 2015 #89

Why didn't President take this stand when INdemo Feb 2015 #90

I say keep it, but turn it back to the talking filibuster ck4829 Feb 2015 #93

If the Dems get in charge they should make that change of Merkley's happen then... cascadiance Feb 2015 #99

Why? So the repukes can pass whatever the hell they want?! KamaAina Feb 2015 #94

The President can talk about sadoldgirl Feb 2015 #95

There is nothing wrong with a good filibuster. ManiacJoe Feb 2015 #100

he did *NOT* advocate eliminating the filibuster altogether. unblock Feb 2015 #102