GOP thought about doing it in 2005.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option_(filibuster)

Quote :

"In U.S. politics, the "nuclear option" is an attempt by a majority of the United States Senate to end a filibuster by invoking a point of order to essentially declare the filibuster unconstitutional which can be decided by a simple majority, rather than seeking formal cloture with a supermajority of 60 senators. Although it is not provided for in the formal rules of the Senate, the procedure is the subject of a 1957 parliamentary opinion and has been used on several occasions since. The term was coined by Senator Trent Lott (Republican of Mississippi) in 2005.[1] The maneuver was brought to prominence in 2005 when then-Majority Leader Bill Frist (Republican of Tennessee) threatened its use to end Democratic-led filibusters of judicial nominees submitted by President George W. Bush. In response to this threat, Democrats threatened to shut down the Senate and prevent consideration of all routine and legislative Senate business. The ultimate confrontation was prevented by the Gang of 14, a group of seven Democratic and seven Republican Senators, all of whom agreed to oppose the nuclear option and oppose filibusters of judicial nominees, except in extraordinary circumstances."

1/19/2010 10:23:44 PM

Yes

It's about time Democrats showed some goddamn backbone. The filibuster is only a procedural rule. It only takes a simple majority to actually pass a bill. I think the threshold to end a filibuster can also be lowered.

1/19/2010 10:29:33 PM

Sure, end centuries of tradition, that dates back much further than our grand republic, back to the times of the Roman Senate when Senators were allowed to have their voice heard without interruption.

It'll make the next round of elections that much sweeter.

1/19/2010 10:32:02 PM

Oh, well, the Romans had filibusters! I guess that settles that.

1/19/2010 10:33:33 PM

It's nice to have a historical perspective on things.

1/19/2010 10:34:49 PM

just seems like there is a damned good point in having it if people as varied as the Romans had it. Seems like those who initially set up the rule saw something good in having at least 60% of people agree to something enough to put it to a vote. That you are so willing to throw that away in the name of political expediency just shows that you are a hack.

1/19/2010 10:35:09 PM

They also loved, i mean loooved, gay sex.

^willing to throw it away? i never said anything of the sort. I like the filibuster. But alluding to the Romans, come on now....

[Edited on January 19, 2010 at 10:43 PM. Reason : .]

1/19/2010 10:35:43 PM

Quote :

"were allowed to have their voice heard without interruption. "

that presumes that somebody actually performs a filibuster[b]. If Republicans are willing to stand and speak [b]continuously until the Dems drop the bill, then fine - please, have at it.

If all anyone does is whisper the word filibuster and the majority of 59 drops to their knees, fuck 'em.

1/19/2010 10:35:53 PM

Quote :

"just seems like there is a damned good point in having it if people as varied as the Romans had it."

kind of like slaves and gladiators, right? The Romans are "varied" (what?) enough for that, so we might as well too.

1/19/2010 10:37:05 PM

^^^i gots no problem with gay sex. fuck all you want, dude.

^I loves me some American Gladiators, though. Don't act like football and rugby aren't modern versions of the same. One could also argue that we still have forms of slavery that exist in America today. The Roman slaves weren't exactly "slaves" in the respect that blacks in America were, either, so your comparison falls flat

1/19/2010 10:49:00 PM

Regardless of specific examples, simply claiming that "the Romans did it" is a horrible reason for us to do it, whatever the idea is.

The Roman Empire also fell. Maybe that was because their Senate had an unruly minority who wouldn't allow the will of the people to be done. OMG DID I JUST BLOW YOUR MIND!?

1/19/2010 10:53:10 PM

It's not that the Democrats can't push the bill through, because they almost certainly can. It's a matter of whether the juice is worth the squeeze, and now that passing it will probably require some creative political shenanigans (either procedural, backroom blowjobbing, or both), the affirmative answer to that question is questionable at best.

I mean, it's pretty clear that the American people don't want what the Dems are trying to do. It's indicated by the polls, and it was indicated by tonight's election. I mean, a Republican winning the Kennedy seat in MASSACHUSETTS, a die-hard blue state where a smaller-scale healthcare program was enacted only a few years ago? Not only that, it wasn't really even that close.

Do the Dems want to pass this badly enough to extend a middle finger to an already irate electorate, with the 2010 elections looming? They can almost certainly ram it through, but the odds of doing it through any sort of normal legislative channels aren't good, and I suspect that the American people will be really fucking pissed if the Dems go that far out of their way to so flagrantly deny popular sentiment.

[Edited on January 19, 2010 at 10:57 PM. Reason : ]

1/19/2010 10:57:37 PM

Quote :

"Regardless of specific examples, simply claiming that "the Romans did it" is a horrible reason for us to do it, whatever the idea is."

absolutely, you are correct. BUT, there is something worthwhile in noting that the tradition of the filibuster is rooted in something as far back as the Romans. As in, people have thought it a good idea for quite some time now. Granted, that doesn't make it invincible from criticism or from a better way, but it should give pause before disregarding it completely.

Quote :

"The Roman Empire also fell. Maybe that was because their Senate had an unruly minority who wouldn't allow the will of the people to be done. OMG DID I JUST BLOW YOUR MIND!?"

Actually, the Roman Empire fell because it could not control all of its regions militarily and also keep up with its public programs. Kind of like what we see today... OMG DID I JUST BLOW YOUR MIND!?

1/19/2010 10:57:38 PM

OMG the romans fell therefore every government should desolve as well!!1!!!!11! It's only a matter of time, after all!

Damn you sound like a fucking idiot.

If you knew anything about law and government, precedent has long been an honored way of not only in the way we create laws but also in the way we make them. To suggest that we should now ignore precedent because your pussy pants party can't get its shit together and pass its socialist agenda unhindered, then best of luck to ya.

They're going to pay in '10 anyway, so might as well go out with a bang.



[Edited on January 19, 2010 at 10:59 PM. Reason : ]

1/19/2010 10:58:09 PM

the comment about Rome falling was a rhetorical device, you fucking retard. The fact that arronburro understood that much but you somehow missed it doesn't speak well for your intellect.

To be clear, i'm not against the filibuster. I do think it is, fundamentally, a good check on power. However, I think it should be required to be used, not just threatened. When was the last time a filibuster threat was actually acted upon? With as many times as the Repbulicans have talked about it, you'd think they would have permanent bunks on the Senate floor by now.

And to call what this group of corporately-owned-and-operated Democrats are trying to do is a "socialist agenda" is absurd. If there were 60 Bernie Sanders in the Senate, you might have a point. But trying to force 30 million Americans to purchase insurance from private companies is about as anti-Socialist as you can get.

1/19/2010 11:05:16 PM

Quote :

"the comment about Rome falling was a rhetorical device, you fucking retard. The fact that arronburro understood that much but you somehow missed it doesn't speak well for your intellect. "

Rabble rabble rabble. Only a fucking idiot would have to depend on rhetorical aburdities in order to take away from an otherwise salient point, which speaks to the depth of your own intellectual prowess.

But yes you are right. The government forcing a private citizen to purchase a privately owned product isn't socialist at all, you're right, no government control there, especially when it's being done for the specific purpose of bringing down our current health care system so that we will be forced to turn to the government so they can step in and take it over. Nope, not socialist in the slightest.

[Edited on January 19, 2010 at 11:28 PM. Reason : ]

1/19/2010 11:25:02 PM

Quote :

"especially when it's being done for the specific purpose of bringing down our current health care system so that we will be forced to turn to the government so they can step in and take it over. "

yeah, i'm familiar with that particular conspiracy theory. I give it about as much credibility as I do the "9/11 Truthers".

That's patently insane to believe that 60 of the most egotistical, loudmouthed, untrustworthy people in the country are actually working together in private, secretly hoping that the plan they've worked on for a year will fail so spectacularly that the entire insurance industry, who is paying each of them quite handsomely btw, will fail.

Yeah, sure.... about as likely as Bush and Co. planting bombs in the WTC, hiring people to hijack airplanes, and shooting missiles into the Pentagon.

1/19/2010 11:31:52 PM

is anyone (of "the opposition") willing to agree with me that the minority, no matter which party, should not be allows to idly threaten the filibuster at any point, and should be forced to go through with an actual filibuster?

I mean, Wlfpk himself says the point of a filibuster is to allow the minority "to have their voice heard without interruption." Surely, then, just using the threat of a filibuster but not actually going through with one does not serve the purpose of the procedure at all, no?

1/19/2010 11:57:28 PM

The problem is there is no way to call them on it, no way to say "oh yeah, go ahead and filibuster, we'll let everyone watch and see you as obstructionist" because filibustering these days is adding & debating unlimited amendments & other procedural tactics, nothing that a large audience would recognize as filibustering if it was shown on tv. So all the power is in the threat, because you can filibuster ad nauseam and still claim with a straight face that you have never filibustered and not be hurt in an election for it.

[Edited on January 20, 2010 at 12:51 AM. Reason : .]

1/20/2010 12:35:11 AM

I think threatening a filibuster is a bitch move. At the same time, the Democrats are too much of a pussy to call their bluff.

1/20/2010 12:36:35 AM

If I were a Democratic strategist, I would say, absolutely, use the nuclear option. Disspell any thinking that you're a bunch of lapdogs, and get your big initiative passed. Use the time you have left to rule with an iron fist, to whatever extent you can. If anything you pass survives and does well, you'll score big points in the longer run.

1/20/2010 12:47:06 AM

The one thing I give the GOP, is they play to win, regardless of how it is accomplished. They have strict party discipline and get people in line. They worry about the consequences later, or just refuse to acknowledge them.

1/20/2010 12:50:35 AM

i think since the filibuster isnt actually a filibuster anymore just a threat there would be no giant disservice to democracy by doing away with it. i wish i had known about the threat vs actually doing it the first time this nuclear option came up a few years ago..

1/20/2010 12:58:30 AM

Queen Olympia Snowe will end up voting with the Dems.....Obama talked to her Friday about ObamaCare...and they have talked a bunch of times....he will give her what she wants and it will pass....

1/20/2010 1:18:32 AM

Quote :

"Oh, well, the Romans had filibusters! I guess that settles that."

without reading the rest of this thread I will point out that precedence is one the backbones of our legal process

1/20/2010 1:31:56 AM

Quote :

"If I were a Democratic strategist, I would say, absolutely, use the nuclear option. Disspell any thinking that you're a bunch of lapdogs, and get your big initiative passed."

If anything this would accelerate the polarization of both parties and possibly their eventual demise.

1/20/2010 1:56:29 AM

Quote :

"is anyone (of "the opposition") willing to agree with me that the minority, no matter which party, should not be allows to idly threaten the filibuster at any point, and should be forced to go through with an actual filibuster?"

I would say that should be left up to the majority to decide. An in the age of the 24 hour news networks, I don't think an actual filibuster will go well for the majority in question.

1/20/2010 1:57:14 AM

wow, nice dodge. The old "blame the victim" gambit.

I do agree that it should be up to the majority, the Dems in this case, to force the minority to go through with it. But that's a real stretch to conclude that by following the rules, it would be the Democrats who look bad.

1/20/2010 9:55:02 AM

Quote :

"But trying to force 30 million Americans to purchase insurance from private companies is about as anti-Socialist as you can get."

if only it were that simple. The intent is to destroy the private market in order to bring in a single gov't entity to replace it. That, frankly is socialist. At the very least, telling millions of people they have to purchase something is inherently not capitalist.

Quote :

"yeah, i'm familiar with that particular conspiracy theory. I give it about as much credibility as I do the "9/11 Truthers". "

so, doing things that are blatantly to the detriment of the industry wouldn't cause the industry any harm? come on, wake the fuck up and realize what the point is.

Quote :

"That's patently insane to believe that 60 of the most egotistical, loudmouthed, untrustworthy people in the country are actually working together in private, secretly hoping that the plan they've worked on for a year will fail so spectacularly that the entire insurance industry, who is paying each of them quite handsomely btw, will fail. "

and you don't think that is what has happened w/ medicare and medicaid? Their design and function is so insidious that it is hard to believe that it wasn't done on purpose. Under-cutting payments so as to run up everyone else's bills? it doesn't take a PhD in economics to realize that that is exactly what would happen. Why should we expect such an equally absurd law today to be any different, especially when we know that single-payer is the wet-dream of just about every liberal senator out there. You really don't think that single-payer is something that Reid and Pelosi want?

Quote :

"i think since the filibuster isnt actually a filibuster anymore just a threat there would be no giant disservice to democracy by doing away with it."

how the fuck do you figure? It's clear the filibuster is having an effect. why throw away something that has a clear and obvious beneficial effect? The fact that the threat effectively serves the purpose of the actual act has no bearing on the utility of the act.

1/20/2010 10:31:16 PM

^^ Blame the victim? What victim? How the fuck can 59 of the most powerful people on the planet be called victims with a straight face? No one is being deprived of their rights here, the majority is free to call the vote. That they do not is evidence that they believe the American people would rally behind the filibustering Republicans and are therefore eager to revoke their right to filibuster (everyone remember Mr Smither going to Washington back when all it took was one lone senator to stop a vote?)

Quote :

"if only it were that simple. The intent is to destroy the private market in order to bring in a single gov't entity to replace it. That, frankly is socialist. At the very least, telling millions of people they have to purchase something is inherently not capitalist."

Bullshit. The intent is to turn the nation's health insurance industry into a defacto single-payer system, just with regional providers. At that point nationalization is unnecessary, Congress can administer the new single-payer system through its regulatory rights and with progressive premiums (subsidized for low income and taxed for high income earners) taking the place of the progressive tax system. Both funding options are progressive and both are mandatory, any difference between the bill proposed and full single-payer would have been rhetoric.

[Edited on January 20, 2010 at 10:53 PM. Reason : .,.]

1/20/2010 10:46:52 PM

I thought I'd come see what you guys thought about all of this...

Why did I bother?

1/20/2010 11:06:55 PM