Should a supermajority be required to do anything in the Senate?

I mean, it wasn't even used until the mid-1800's, and after that only sparingly. Now it's being used for basic procedural steps. There were three of them last night, even before the actual health care vote has occurred.




[Edited on December 21, 2009 at 7:58 AM. Reason : ]

12/21/2009 7:57:09 AM

People who are fearful of change will use any method they can to stop changes from happening.

They might not have filibustered much in the 19th century, but they did fight a war over change. Given the alternative, I'd prefer they filibuster.

12/21/2009 8:02:35 AM

They filibustered the crap out of civil rights legislation.

12/21/2009 8:07:56 AM

supermajority of 1 party should not be required. A plan that you can get 60%+ of senators to agree on, yea i think so. you are talking about legislation that cost hundreds of billions of dollars and will impact every American, if you cant get at least 60% of the vote for something like that maybe we don't need it.

12/21/2009 8:14:02 AM

With an ever increasing amount of bad legislation, you would expect filibusters to also increase. If I was a senator, I'd be trying to filibuster pretty much everything that comes through. If anything, we need to make it harder to pass laws. This healthcare bill, for instance, is a great example of the majority party forcing laws on the people, when the majority of Americans are actually against it. And they're probably going to end up being successful, thanks to buying votes.

12/21/2009 8:44:34 AM

12/21/2009 8:55:59 AM

Quote :

"is a great example of the majority party forcing laws on the people, when the majority of Americans are actually against it"

I wouldn't be so quick to separate the majority party from the majority of the people. They were voted for by the people, and after the 2010 elections, Democrats with still be the majority party. If you're looking for better representation of the people, then that's what the House is for, and look at the bill they passed. Face it-- the American people voted for this.

And if you're looking at polling regarding the healthcare bill, specifically, well:





SCRAP THE BILL GUYS, THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN

[Edited on December 21, 2009 at 9:28 AM. Reason : ]

12/21/2009 9:26:03 AM

That looks like a graph of the debt

12/21/2009 9:27:35 AM

Quote :

"I wouldn't be so quick to separate the majority party from the majority of the people. They were voted for by the people, and after the 2010 elections, Democrats with still be the majority party. If you're looking for better representation of the people, then that's what the House is for, and look at the bill they passed. Face it-- the American people voted for this."

No, the people didn't vote for this. The people don't vote on specific issues, they elect a representative. Representatives end up voting for whatever they feel is in their best interests, but that isn't an accurate reflection of public sentiment. I also wouldn't say that the House is a better representation of the people, given the extent to which voting districts are gerrymandered to support incumbents. At least senators are voted on in state-wide elections, though originally, they were elected by the state legislature.

I saw a recent Rasmussen poll putting disapproval for the current healthcare bill at 56%. You can find polls showing different numbers, but either way, a little more or less than 50% of people are against the bill, so it's not as if this bill has broad-based support and a few politicians are standing in the way.

12/21/2009 9:47:30 AM

^^^The question in that poll is bullshit. Do you want "a healthcare bill?". Come on now, you know damned well that 46% is made up of people who want different versions of "a healthcare bill". The current bill is garbage and should be dropped.

Lower energy prices, fix education, and maybe then come back to healthcare and do it right.

[Edited on December 21, 2009 at 9:49 AM. Reason : ^^^]

12/21/2009 9:49:29 AM

^^^No it doesn't, that graph clearly is not demonstrating exponential growth.

[Edited on December 21, 2009 at 9:49 AM. Reason : blah]

12/21/2009 9:49:36 AM

Yeah, the big problem with determining the majority opinion of the American people is that there have been so many different iterations of the bill.

A few months ago, polls showed tremendous support for healthcare reform. Specifically, people were for the public option. The big trick was that people were for the "public option" but against the "government option," which indicates some silliness on the part of the American public, but anyway...

Since those polls, we've heard nothing but news about how this bill has been gutted so much that it doesn't really effect any change. It doesn't include a public option. It doesn't expand Medicare. And it costs too much. It makes a few good changes, but ultimately, it's not the amazing reform people had imagined. So, of course, the public doesn't support it anymore.

Unfortunately, the Obama administration has built this legislation up to be the most important thing ever and invested a tremendous amount of time and energy in it, so they have to get something through, even if that something is just one giant compromise that doesn't satisfy anybody (except apparently the insurance companies ).

12/21/2009 9:55:04 AM

No actually thats so fucking wrong. They dont need to PASS ANYTHING HOLY SHIT WE HAVE TO PASS SOMETHING!!!! IT DOESNT MATTER WHAT JUST PASS IT!!!

That shit and its proponents are the reason the fed is in bad shape. The short term thinking of the baby boomers needs to end. Fixing healthcare requires long term solutions, and no bill considered this year would do that. Its all a bunch of short term shit to get healthcare providers rich and pile on more debt in exchange for votes.

Congress' time would be much better spent decreasing energy prices through new nuclear power and significant deductions/credits for individuals and businesses who use wind/solar/geothermal in their buildings/homes.

Then fix the education system so we can stop churning out the types of retards who think the healthcare legislation proposed this year was any good.

Then go back and look at healthcare from a cost perspective, instead of an insurance perspective.

12/21/2009 10:08:24 AM

In the case of the USA, a nearly-equally-divided two party government won't get anything done.

This is often a good thing for the Republicans, since "preventing radical legislation" is, by itself, an accomplishment of their agenda. The Democrats, on the other hand, need to achieve a significant majority to accomplish their aims; and they don't have it. As long as "Progress" is the stated Democrat mission, they will always be at a disadvantage.

I think the best thing that could happen to American politics is for one of the parties to fracture along moderate/purist lines.

12/21/2009 10:08:48 AM

i've been wondering about this for a while. News reports simply say now "It takes 60 votes to pass through the Senate", and I just want to yell "NO IT DOESN'T!! ALL THEY NEED IS A MAJORITY"

I think it would help if the democrats started forcing Republicans to go through with their filibuster threats. When was the last time they actually had to stand there and speak against a bill indefinitely? A republican senator (McConell?) made Bernie Sanders read his amendment for 3 hours before Sanders withdrew it last week.... the Dems need to man-up and make them perform real filibusters instead of just threatening them at every turn.

12/21/2009 10:09:51 AM

This was posted on another forum (SA) and i thought it might fit here:

Quote :

"Right now the Republican Party is like the Zords forming the Megazord. Sure they're hella vulnerable, and everyone is shouting at the tv "GO KILL THEM NOW! LOOK THEY'RE INCAPABLE OF FIGHTING BACK!" but for some reason those badass giant monsters they're fighting (democrats!!! *shakes fist in fury*) are too incompetent to strike during their golden opportunity. And as time goes on something in international or domestic news is going to happen and the republicans are going to get their proverbial Power Sword and take back the Angel Grove (the government) and everyone is going to forget that the Megazord destroyed half of the city in the process (seriously, is Angel Grove full of abandoned sky scrappers? Because if not their must of been some serious collateral damage). Rita (obama) is gonna be pissed. "

12/21/2009 10:15:57 AM

Quote :

"They filibustered the crap out of civil rights legislation."

You're right.

Democrat Strom Thurmond holds the record for the longest personal filibuster when he unsuccessfully tried to stop the Civil Rights Act of 1957. (24 hours 18 minutes).

Democratic senators also held a 75 hour filibuster against passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

12/21/2009 10:27:35 AM

does someone need a history lesson??

[Edited on December 21, 2009 at 10:33 AM. Reason : .]

12/21/2009 10:32:55 AM

Quote :

"The question in that poll is bullshit. Do you want "a healthcare bill?"."

Do you think any people asked that question thought it was referring to just any ole' healthcare bill?

No, of course not. Any reference to "a" bill is going to be interpreted by anyone watching the news as "the" bill.

Quote :

"Democrat Strom Thurmond holds the record for the longest personal filibuster when he unsuccessfully tried to stop the Civil Rights Act of 1957. (24 hours 18 minutes). Democratic senators also held a 75 hour filibuster against passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

The original House version:

* Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
* Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)

* Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
* Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)

The Senate version:

* Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
* Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas)
* Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure)


Yeah, so not really.


[Edited on December 21, 2009 at 10:35 AM. Reason : ]

12/21/2009 10:34:05 AM

Quote :

"Do you think any people asked that question thought it was referring to just any ole' healthcare bill? No, of course not. Any reference to "a" bill is going to be interpreted by anyone watching the news as "the" bill."

Of course the question means "any" healthcare bill. If they wanted to ask about the current healthcare bill they would have said "do you support the current healthcare bill". The question is designed to encompass those who want the current bill and those who dont want the current bill, but want either the original bill or a different bill.

Someone else posted a poll where they showed who was for the current version of the bill vs. any bill and it was a much smaller portion. So yea. its a bad question.

12/21/2009 10:40:29 AM

here it is:

12/21/2009 10:44:24 AM

I think I was the one who posted the chart:



So not everyone likes it as much as their ideal plan. Great. Let's not pass anything until we can make everyone happy.


^Yeah, and it proves my point. Don't even tell me that a significant portion of that 12% on the left would rather have nothing than this bill.



[Edited on December 21, 2009 at 10:49 AM. Reason : ]

12/21/2009 10:46:58 AM

what? Your point was the original poll was proof that lots of people wanted the current bill which is obviously not the case.

All it proves is its pretty much 50/50 on getting anything passed. Thats not anything like a majority, and its certainly not enough for something this important.

12/21/2009 10:50:26 AM

The idea that people would choose something half assed instead of nothing, knowing full well that that half-assed shit will prevent future change, is so fucking offensive to me. It boils my brain just thinking about it.

12/21/2009 10:52:43 AM

Quote :

"All it proves is its pretty much 50/50 on getting anything passed. Thats not anything like a majority"

But on the other side of the coin, does it back up this statement:

"This healthcare bill, for instance, is a great example of the majority party forcing laws on the people, when the majority of Americans are actually against it."

Absolutely not.

The half the country is in favor of -a- bill. Lawmakers are getting them a bill. Lawmakers who were elected by their constituents. So d357r0y3r's point is incorrect.

Quote :

"The idea that people would choose something half assed instead of nothing, knowing full well that that half-assed shit will prevent future change, is so fucking offensive to me."

I know full well that near future change is not in the cards. It's a little something now, or nothing for years.


ANYHOO:

Filibuster-- should it be limited?

[Edited on December 21, 2009 at 10:59 AM. Reason : ]

12/21/2009 10:57:05 AM

Absolutely not.

12/21/2009 11:00:38 AM

^^That's a stretch, for sure. The majority of people are against the current bill. I don't know how to make it clearer than that. You're saying that because lawmakers are elected by the people, and because the majority of people support a bill but not the bill, my point is incorrect?

And there shouldn't be further limits on filibusters. They already are limited in the sense that cloture can be invoked if 60 senators support it.

[Edited on December 21, 2009 at 11:19 AM. Reason : ]

12/21/2009 11:09:26 AM

Ha, the "anti filibuster"ers in this thread sound worse than Al Franken.

Here is one example of where anybody in this thread is "anti filibuster" in this case is 100% a Franken fan for life. ha.

12/21/2009 11:12:20 AM

I want to have fun with semantics too!

1. Most people want health-care reform.
2. This is the only achievable health-care reform.

Thus

3. This is what most people want.

12/21/2009 11:19:26 AM

Quote :

"and because the majority of people support a bill but not the bill, my point is incorrect?"

There's no "a" bill. When you ask someone "would you like Congress to pass a healthcare reform bill?" There's no way you can tell me that people take that to mean "whichever bill you'd prefer."

The approval rate would be 96%. "Why yes, Mr. Polster, I would like a healthcare bill that mandates a NCAA college football tournament, thanks for asking."

Quote :

"1. Most people want health-care reform. 2. This is the only achievable health-care reform. Thus 3. This is what most people want."

It's wrong to assume that people aren't willing to accept compromise.




[Edited on December 21, 2009 at 11:31 AM. Reason : ]

12/21/2009 11:27:52 AM

"nuclear option" vs. "process of reconciliation"

12/21/2009 11:46:14 AM

Quote :

"There's no way you can tell me that people take that to mean "whichever bill you'd prefer.""

I think that is what people take it to mean. A lot of people are against any kind of healthcare bill at all. Then there are all the people that think we need some kind of bill passed, but opinions on what that bill needs to contain vary from person to person. The NCAA thing isn't relevant, because a bill mandating a football tournament wouldn't be labeled a healthcare bill.

Anyway, compromise isn't always a good thing. Compromise for the sake of "getting something passed" can often be harmful, but I feel like I'm beating a dead horse on that subject.

[Edited on December 21, 2009 at 11:53 AM. Reason : ]

12/21/2009 11:52:16 AM

Quote :

"It's wrong to assume that people aren't willing to accept compromise."

This statement is just as meaningless as the generalized, "do you support a health care bill" question.

gg

12/21/2009 11:56:15 AM

Quote :

"A lot of people are against any kind of healthcare bill at all. Then there are all the people that think we need some kind of bill passed, but opinions on what that bill needs to contain vary from person to person. The NCAA thing isn't relevant, because a bill mandating a football tournament wouldn't be labeled a healthcare bill."

"Any" healthcare reform bill could also refer to one that enacts tort reform, allows people to buy insurance from other states, and cuts taxes. The people you claim are "against any kind of healthcare bill at all" would be all for that.

Yet, somehow these people are polling against the healthcare bill.

12/21/2009 11:58:50 AM

And like you said, everyone loves compromise, so they should be totally happy with the "compromises" that negate every single thing they would like to see in the healthcare bill

12/21/2009 12:00:55 PM

i like all of you will be welcoming the new taxes to take care of the huge spending this will create.

12/21/2009 12:42:05 PM

This argument occurs every time the Houses of Congress or the White House changes parties.

12/21/2009 1:20:07 PM

Quote :

"Shaggy: No actually thats so fucking wrong. They dont need to PASS ANYTHING HOLY SHIT WE HAVE TO PASS SOMETHING!!!! IT DOESNT MATTER WHAT JUST PASS IT!!! That shit and its proponents are the reason the fed is in bad shape."

Of course, it's wrong, but it's politics. Democrats have to pass something. It's pathetic, I know, but Obama would look even more pathetic if they wasted all this time and all these words and didn't do something.

Also, I should be clear that nobody is a "proponent" of this, except for the Republicans. No Democrat started this thing out, saying, "Man, I hope we drop the ball and end up having to push some bullshit through for the sake of politics." No, that was the goal of the Republicans...they can blame the Democrats for being impotent and failing OR they can blame the Democrats for passing a shitty piece of legislation...

12/21/2009 2:03:50 PM

if the democrats aren't a proponet then they should shelve the issue and move on to something worthwhile. This whole "wahh wahh we're too fucking stupid to get anything past the mean republicans" bit is tired. If the thing passes, the reps claim victory for defeating the public option and the dems look impotent. If nothing gets passed, the republicans claim victory and the dems go sulk. The democrats come out looking like shit either way. it would be best for them to just not do anything instead of sacrificing future reform to save a tiny bit of face.

If they had any backbone at all they'd shelve it and claim the republicans removed any real reform components, but they wont do that. They'll let this shit bill pass, let the republicans declare victory, and then mope around for a while.

The excuse that its just politics is worthless when you're as bad at politics as the democrats.

12/21/2009 2:28:03 PM

Shaggy is 100% correct.

12/21/2009 2:33:41 PM

^^Obama endeavored to do something good for everybody and bent over backwards across the aisle, and Republicans pretty much refused to participate in any meaningful way. They wanted a shit bill so they're gonna get a shit bill. I'm sure they'd like for Democrats to give up altogether, but they can't get everything they want. There's still a couple good things in there that Obama can trumpet as a great victory for Americans...

12/21/2009 3:05:37 PM

"in any meaningful way"

the built-in escape hatch if your argument gets called to the floor

12/21/2009 4:51:56 PM

Well, no, I don't think going on TV and claiming the bill aims to kill our grandparents is meaningful participation.

12/21/2009 4:57:49 PM

1. let the republicans filibuster bill before they pass the troop surge funding
2. get on TV and say they are causing the troops to not get funding due to stopping legislative processes.
3. Profit

12/21/2009 5:31:49 PM

^My understanding is that filibusters now are actually just threats of filibustering through rules and procedural processes to indefinitely slow things down, so there is nothing that actually looks like filibustering that you can put on TV in the old fashioned sense where you cared enough about something to actually endure holding the floor so long.

12/21/2009 6:03:44 PM

Quote :

"Obama endeavored to do something good for everybody and bent over backwards across the aisle"

oh, bullshit. and you know it. is that why practically all of his meetings about healthcare at the white house have included only democrats? come on, if he really wanted to include republicans, he would take more steps towards that aim, such as actually, I dunno, listening to them

12/21/2009 6:22:19 PM

^^ except Fox News wouldn't report it, and no one would ever hear about it.

12/21/2009 6:23:05 PM

Was it not republicans bitching about the same thing in 2004 when they proposed the "nuclear option" to break the democrat filibuster?

Honestly I do not even pay attention to this shit anymore. The current system needs fixing. Crazy liberals want to hand every welfare queen a blank check for healthcare, a free cellphone, and more foodstamps. On the other side windbag reactionary conservative neo-cons think their is nothing wrong with healthcare, those who can not afford health care should rot on the street, and want to create slick legislation to somehow make/save their big corporate buddies more money.

I would think that somewhere in the middle would be realistic republicans who think their needs to be reform but also do not want to overburden the tax payer. Also, there would be realistic democrats who pursue reform but understand the "free-loader" issue and also care enough about the negative effects on industry that they would hold back the radical lefties. Besides this given the wide range of needs and desires across our vast geographic population that depending on the state/district the current plan would provide a net benefit or net burden. A congressman/senator would thus make his decision on these factors on rather to support the bill.

What do we see instead????????????????????

A vote RIGHT DOWN THE FUCKING PARTY LINE. I fail to believe a bill so massive and effecting so many people sounds "GOOD" if your a democrat and "HORRIBLE DOOMSDAY TO AMERICA" if you are a republican. Give me a fucking break. This seems nothing more than a power struggle and continued bitterness of built in passive aggressiveness from when democrats were shackled by Bush and a cry-baby attitude from the GOP they lost the legislature and white house.

I also think its time for the line-item veto to get enacted. We all know to get such a behemoth bill through Robert Byrd got 50 million to build a history of coal museum in WV, Nancy Pelosi got $22 million to fund a bird watching society in San Francisco, Ted Kennedy before passing got $90 million to build a new air port in New England. All tacked onto this bill.

[Edited on December 21, 2009 at 6:57 PM. Reason : ll]

12/21/2009 6:49:12 PM

no, it isn't, and this is why:

Quote :

"A few months ago, polls showed tremendous support for healthcare reform. Specifically, people were for the public option. The big trick was that people were for the "public option" but against the "government option," which indicates some silliness on the part of the American public, but anyway..."

The entire point of the Senate is to act as a check on the mercurial whims of the American electorate.

12/21/2009 8:08:59 PM

Yesterday I caught a clerk reading an amendment on C-span. Are actual members required to filibuster or can they force it off on some poor clerk?

12/21/2009 8:15:41 PM