| 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: |
| Rethinking the Filibuster | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 8 2006, 04:02 PM (184 Views) | |
| QuirtEvans | Jun 8 2006, 04:02 PM Post #1 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
I have to admit, today's vote on the estate tax has me rethinking the filibuster. Not on the substance. I'm pretty much with the minority on this one, I don't think the estate tax should be repealed. I'm willing to listen to arguments that it should be reduced, but I don't think it should be repealed entirely. No, this is a process point. The filibuster, I thought, was supposed to be used in extraordinary circumstances. Now, this wasn't really a filibuster, because no one was actually filibustering. But it seems that, by default, nothing is allowed to come to the floor of the Senate for a vote unless it's unavoidable (spending and authorization bills) or unless there are 60 votes in favor. This isn't the system of government the Founding Fathers envisioned, and it isn't the way cloture has historically worked. It was saved for exceptional circumstances. I don't think the estate tax repeal qualifies, even if I disagree with it. So I'm rethinking my view on Senate rules about cloture and filibusters. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| George K | Jun 8 2006, 04:13 PM Post #2 |
|
Finally
|
Quirt, you and I have discussed filibuster before. I haven't watched the news today (got home late) so I'm in the dark on this issue. Care to elaborate? |
|
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 | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Jun 8 2006, 04:16 PM Post #3 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
The Republicans brought up repeal of the estate tax. They couldn't cut off debate, by a 57-41 vote. So the measure dies. Apparently, some conservative Dems will switch sides if a compromise bill (reducing the tax, not eliminating it) is brought up, and Frist promised to do so, if this failed. But he insisted on trying the repeal first. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Jun 8 2006, 06:11 PM Post #4 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
If it brings about a compromise bill that more people can support and thus gets passed, is this not a good thing? Why would the filibuster be bad simply because it stopped an extreme action on the estate tax from being passed? It seems to me the essense of democracy is compromise. This is what it looks like we will get -- a good thing in my book. |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| Mark | Jun 8 2006, 07:48 PM Post #5 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
The estate tax is theft pure and simple. As are all taxes based on income and investments. |
|
___.___ (_]===* o 0 When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Jun 8 2006, 09:57 PM Post #6 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Because it isn't our Constitutional system of government. There are lots of systems that might force compromise, to a greater or lesser degree. But they aren't the system that we have. I wonder how you'd feel if Congress had "compromised" when discussing civil rights in the 1960s, or when creating the Social Security system. The bottom line is that the filibuster system is something that was adopted by 100 men who weren't our founding fathers, and wasn't put into the Constitution. I have a hard time reconciling it with the process as designed. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| JBryan | Jun 9 2006, 04:50 AM Post #7 |
![]()
I am the grey one
|
Since, under the Constitution, the Senate and House make their own rules there is nothing unconstitutional about the fullibuster, nor is it necessarily contrary to anything the founders may have envisioned. from its inception the senate was always viewed as the body least in control by the majority, a place where the minority might prevail. This is consistent with the founder's view that majority rule often leads to tyranny. The Senate was also conceived as the House where legislation had more difficulty in passing to act as a brake against populist legislation emerging from the House. The cup and saucer analogy we are all familiar with. I have no problem with the fillibuster and it has often killed very bad pieces of legislation that happened to enjoy tremendous popular support at the time they were proposed only to be revealed as bad in retrospect. I also support the repeal of the estate tax. |
|
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it". Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody. Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore. From The Lion in Winter. | |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Jun 9 2006, 06:10 AM Post #8 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
Actually, the filibuster was used for decades to stop civil rights legislation. However, in my opinion, it was the lack of the will of the Senate to approve civil rights legislation that was wrong, not the technique. One of the primary concepts of our Constitution is to ensure that there is no tyranny of the majority. When we do not have split government, the filibuster helps to bring this about. Given the fact that the vast majority of legislation gets through the Senate and it is only in controversial legislation where the filibuster becomes a consideration, I think the current Senate rules serve the purposes of the Constitution and do not undermine them. |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Jun 9 2006, 09:10 AM Post #9 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Well, as JB says, the Senate and House are free to adopt their own rules. The next Senate (note the phrasing, IT) isn't bound by this Senate's (note the phrasing, IT) rules, and so could, by a simple 51-person vote, eliminate the cloture rule. And the next House (note the phrasing, IT), if it so desired, could adopt a cloture rule. So, if it's such a great rule, why the Senate only? Why not in both the House and the Senate? Why not enshrine it in a Constitutional amendment, so 51 runaway Senators can't change the way the republic functions? |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jun 9 2006, 09:28 AM Post #10 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Did someone say something?
|
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
|
|
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |








4:51 PM Jul 10