IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New On the Senate filibuster, and reading the 2074 page bill.
The current rules do have some logic to them...

http://www.talkingpo...at_filibuster.php

[...] Actual all night filibusters are pretty much for show - for example, the Democrats staging an all night discussion of the war in Iraq, or the Republicans wanting to highlight Democratic delays of Bush's judicial nominees. But the key reason for the development of the current practice is that forcing a "traditional filibuster" is a lot harder on the majority than on the filibusterer. It only takes one person to "suggest the absence of a quorum" and object to a request that the quorum requirement be lifted. It takes 51 Senators to make a quorum and force someone to debate. That's why the frequent calls to "make them really filibuster!" don't make a lot of sense. As for Coburn's threat to force the 2,000 page bill to be read, that became not much of a threat when Reid set things up to have the vote on the motion to proceed before Thanksgiving and start debate afterwards. The bill would only have to be read after the motion to proceed is adopted and Reid lays down his amendment, which means everyone could just go home and the only people who would be working would be the bill clerks doing the reading, the floor staff, one Senator to preside - plus Coburn (or someone in cahoots with him) would have had to stay on the floor to object to periodic requests from the Chair to waive the bill reading. So by forcing the reading, Coburn would put his own and his cohorts Thanksgiving Dinner in jeopardy, but not anyone else's.


Cheers,
Scott.
New The problem is the lack of cost
Speeding up the system is why they went with the current system, but the new system system has an even bigger problem. Because there is essentially no cost for filibustering now, people use it all the time. Essentially, to pass a bill of any significance now, you have to have a super majority that can break the filibuster.

The old rules put two serious prices on a filibuster. First, no activity could happen during a filibuster, so many Senators who planned to vote against the bill will vote to stop the filibuster so that other bills could be moved forward. Second, because it did require that they stand there and talk, a lone Senator could only filibuster for so long.

I'm not sure going back to the old system would be the best solution, but there needs to be some cost to calling for a filibuster.

Jay
New Great points.
     On the Senate filibuster, and reading the 2074 page bill. - (Another Scott) - (2)
         The problem is the lack of cost - (jay) - (1)
             Great points. -NT - (Another Scott)

Prolly need to go back for "reeducation"...
27 ms