| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| The Filibuster -- Use The Other Thread | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Dec 4 2005, 09:03 AM (138 Views) | |
| Rick Zimmer | Dec 4 2005, 09:03 AM Post #1 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
From another thread...
Yes, I think it is a legitimate legislative tactic in our system of government, even though it is often used for less than high-minded purposes. I think we can be readily assured that politicians as a group will, more often than not, act in their own self-interest and will seldom act out of a deeper sense of purpose. Politicians are more often whores than they are statesmen. Somehow the system needs to allow for a higher purpose to be focused on and protected. Our entire system was designed to make it hard for the majority to run amock. It also was never intended to have political parties that could rally their members and intimidate, if not force, their members to vote against what they individually may feel is in the best interest of the nation. Thus the need for some sort of mechanism to allow for the less-than-popular, but perhaps appropriate interests to be forced to be debated. Keep in mind, the filibuster as now practiced can be easily stopped with a closure vote of 60 senators. It does not stop enactment of a law; it just demands that the issue be given greater scrutiny and that the majority party be able to sway a few members of the opposition party to their way of thinking. I do not believe this is too much of a requirements when a minority, even a small minority of one, believes strongly in their position and demands that the politicians actually think before they adopt something. Forcing compromise and joint action by member of both parties is not a bad thing in a system built around the idea of checks and balances when there are those who believe an issue is important enough to demand such action. If we did not have political parties with all of the attendent power such parties have to intimidate and impose their will on their members and if all legislators were truly free to vote in accordance with their conscience and their belief of the nation's good, then perhaps we would not need the filibuster. But most legislators do not have the cajones to do this. When there are some who do, the syetem should slow down, listen and take this seriously. This is all the filibuster does and is, in my opinion, a good thing. |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Dec 4 2005, 09:11 AM Post #2 |
|
MAMIL
|
It's not just the US. Some MP in Britain just broke the record for the longest speech in a good long while (3 hours 17 minutes). I don't think its an acceptable tactic, but everyone does it. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| George K | Dec 4 2005, 09:13 AM Post #3 |
|
Finally
|
Rick, you make some interesting, and, I think, well-thought out points. Last summer I had the opportunity to read a couple of books about the early United States ("Founding Brothers" was one of them). You are correct in saying that the original intent of the nation was not to have political parties, and that didn't occur until early in the 19th century - with Jefferson and Hamilton. I don't think that Washington would have approved. I particularly liked your comment about politicians not having the cojones to vote the way they see fit - as opposed to the party line. As John D'Oh said, when politicians stop towing (sic) the party line, perhaps we should pay attention. However, it's what we have now, and we have to deal with it. I'm all for open debate on a subject, for examination of all the ramifications of a proposed piece of legislation. Do you think that the filibuster accomplishes that? I'm reminded of Strom Thurmond who spent hours reading from a cookbook. Checks and balances, no way! Until that kind of abuse is prohibited, then the institution of filibuster is fundementally flawed. I had forgotten that it only takes 60 votes for cloture (did I spell that right?), and therefore, it would seem to me that the majority would only need 9 votes to shut down a filibuster. What with all the arm-twisting and back door deals that go on in DC, I don't see how it would be that hard to get those votes. It sorta like overriding a presidential veto. They don't have the cojones. |
|
A guide to GKSR: Click "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08 Nothing is as effective as homeopathy. I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18 | |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Dec 4 2005, 09:13 AM Post #4 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
To continue this discussion, go to: Filbuster - American as Apple Pie |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| ***musical princess*** | Dec 4 2005, 09:17 AM Post #5 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I tried to make it interesting, honestly i did. But talking for over three hours to a bunch of politicians is no mean feet. ![]() x |
| x Caroline x | |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Dec 4 2005, 09:24 AM Post #6 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
To continue this discussion, go to: Filbuster - American as Apple Pie |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |







4:52 PM Jul 10