Another Example of the Need for Filibuster Reform

[SMR 368]

So, if you can't get what you want within the framework of the existing rules, change the rules?

What about the checks and balances that the US Governmental system is supposed to be about?

this is nothing new from steven. he also wants there to be a simple majority instead of 2/3 to pass the budget in california and to raise taxes. he wants this all the while knowing that the dems have had a majority in CA for many decades so basically, he wants no opposition to whatever the dems decided is right for CA. anything that gets in the way, he wants it reformed to suit his party's politics. i'm thinking he doesn't really like democracy.

no offense steven, just saying it like it is.

Requiring a super majority to raise taxes in California has proven to be a catastrophic disaster and one of the main reasons our state is in trouble. I have faith in a system where if you allow the majority who voted into office set out to do what they were elected to do and they fail, then you simply vote them out. Prop 13 has created a political stale mate where no majority except a super majority can fix the budget crisis....so blaming the Democrats for not having a super majority because the Republican Party forgot what bipartisanship meant, is faulty logic.

prop 13? if only prop 13 was changed? if only and then CA would have no budget issues? everything would be fixed? the pols wouldn't project rosy property tax revenues so that they could justify more spending? what about today's crisis, property taxes are going down, it isn't a solid source of reliable income because of prop 8. prop 8 kicked in in 1992 also. i know, i know, kill prop 8 too, anything for the dems to turn california/america into a socialist state.

the only thing prop 13 does is force CA to get its revenue from other sources. just as nevada and other states don't get any income tax, they get it from other sources. just as delaware doesn't get sales tax, it gets revenue from other sources. they make up for it somewhere else, they always do. in CA, bonds is the way they do it.

you really don't like democracy. one sided politics will kill any country.

what prop 13 does is keep retirees in their home and in their home state instead of forcing them to move to florida or texas to survive.

You missed my point. It's a question of whether you support a simple majority for passing legislation or a super majority. We already have a veto system with the Governor. So no tax increase would pass unless both the state legislature and the Governor were on board with it. The problem with a super majority is the numbers. If a party that is overrun by ideologues who essentially believe in the ineffectiveness of government, and they know that statistically, voters are pretty much along a 55/45 split, nothing will ever move forward, which would help further the argument by the one party who doesn't believe government can do anything anyhow. And on top of that, they will then blame the ineffectiveness of government on the party with the simple majority...or at least try to. That's basically why our state is in the sh!ts.

you should relate very well to this. i don't know why you can't understand it since you are way left you are also overrun by idealogue as well. from your posts, it is obvious that you see no middle ground in politics, your view is extreme left and seemingly so much in favor of a 1 party system or you have a very low tolerance for democracy.

if you want the repubs in CA to get off their ideologues stump at least be someone who doesn't stand on one as well.

i might have missed your point, but what i said still applies. killing prop 13 does not balance CA's budget, it doesn't get CA out of any messes now or in the future. CA can and will make up the difference from bond measures... retirees will stay in their home and their home state.

light a candle for democracy steven.

again, no offense, you are what you are and we need liberals just like you, but in terms of ideologue, you have no ground to stand on really.

Come on DE - at least try and counter argue the point I'm making. For ALL legislation EXCEPT tax increases, all is required to pass is a simple majority. Hell, I'd even consider letting ALL legislation require a super majority like tax increases so that maybe then California voters will realize how this jacks up our state.

Why don't you want to let those who are elected do their job and then if their policies fail, vote them out? Requiring a super majority (as in the case of tax increases in CA) or to become filibuster proof in Washington, makes it nearly impossible to get anything done, which is what the Far Right want on most issues. They don't want government to succeed because their whole ideology would fall apart like a house of cards.

You're right, the right wants government to be inefficient. That's what checks and balances means. You cripple the government so it can't oppress you. There have been lots of efficient and effective governments in history but none of them were free. The government should have as little responsibility/power as possible because either the government will abuse that power or it will be so inefficient that it will not be able to deal with the problems that it is facing.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Libs always want to do away with filibuster when they have the senate. So did repubs. Bottom line is that Dems are in power now and big fat hypocrits because they wanted filibuster under Bush and Repub control. And vice-versa.

This is scary. I actually agree with Joe for once.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

David Hamilton of Indiana, President Obama's first appeals court nominee, was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee 158 days ago. Care to guess how many George W. Bush nominees were held in limbo this long in the last Congress? Zero. And yet, Hamilton's nomination hasn't been brought to the floor due to unprecedented Senate Republican obstructionism. This week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) intends to force the issue, bring Hamilton to the floor, and seek a cloture vote.

Leading the charge against Hamilton will be Sen. Jeff Sessions ® of Alabama. Perhaps now would be a good time to point out what Jeff Sessions had to say about blocking judicial nominees as recently as four years ago:

"I have stated over and over again on this floor that I would refuse to put an anonymous hold on a judge; that I would object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported; that I felt the Senate should do its duty. If we don't like somebody the President nominates, vote him or her up or down. But don't hold them in this anonymous unconscionable limbo...."

"Unconscionable."

At the time, Sessions added that denying a judicial nominee an up-or-down vote was inconsistent with a process that has been in place "since the founding of the republic."

I guess he's changed his mind. How convenient.

It's worth emphasizing that when the president nominated Judge Hamilton for the7th Circuit seven months ago, Obama did so specifically because Hamilton has a record of moderation. The nomination was intended to send a signal that the process of filling judicial vacancies need not be contentious. "We would like to put the history of the confirmation wars behind us," one White House aide said back in March.

Obama can't win for trying. No matter how moderate his nominees, no matter how qualified they are, no matter how much support they may garner, Senate Republicans are going to do what no Senate minority has ever done -- try to block them all, just a few years after arguing that any attempts to filibuster a judicial nominee tears at the very fabric of our republic.

With a 60-member caucus, Reid can hopefully make some quick progress on this. And if there are any Republicans left who are willing to concede that these tactics are ridiculous, now would be the ideal time for him or her to step up.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Another Example of the Need for Filibuster Reform

I guess democracy is a bitter pill for for zealots all around, eh?

Yea, tough for libs to have to deal with diversity when it's not about culture, religion, nationality, or skin color, but a diversity of opinion.

So, if you can't get what you want within the framework of the existing rules, change the rules?

What about the checks and balances that the US Governmental system is supposed to be about?

And why stop there? Why not eliminate the Congressional override of the President's powers of veto? Or, conversely, get rid of the President's powers of veto? Or, why not get rid of the President? Or Congress? Or the Senate? Take your pick.

The existing rules are there and have worked in the past to stop either party bludgeoning through policy without first trying to assure it has enough support. People need to quit whining about "filibuster reform" and start working on the root causes behind dissension within parties and attempt to try bipartisan correspondence. Don't laugh. Senator Olympia Snowe is proof that it isn't a totally lost cause.

Just because a Bill won't pass doesn't mean the rules are bad, just that the supporters need to do more work with people to get it passed.

*Ahem* Massachusetts sets the bar for changing the law when the decider is or is not a **.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

So, if you can't get what you want within the framework of the existing rules, change the rules?

What about the checks and balances that the US Governmental system is supposed to be about?

this is nothing new from steven. he also wants there to be a simple majority instead of 2/3 to pass the budget in california and to raise taxes. he wants this all the while knowing that the dems have had a majority in CA for many decades so basically, he wants no opposition to whatever the dems decided is right for CA. anything that gets in the way, he wants it reformed to suit his party's politics. i'm thinking he doesn't really like democracy.

no offense steven, just saying it like it is.

Who needs to filibuster? Just sneak a legislative rider into one of those 2,000 page bills that make Barry king for life and be done with it.