Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And that is the Harry Reid I was expecting to show up to the party, well I am sure the Republicans got the message and won't be filibustering every bill that comes through.....yeah, right.
And that is the Harry Reid I was expecting to show up to the party, well I am sure the Republicans got the message and won't be filibustering every bill that comes through.....yeah, right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78
Guess you are against the talking filibuster.
Mob rule....
There is a reason our 2/3rds makes a lot of sense.
There was a good reason Senators use to be appointed by State legislatures, to stay tied to the interest of the state, not special interest and lobbyists to be bought off.
There is a reason our 2/3rds makes a lot of sense.
There was a good reason Senators use to be appointed by State legislatures, to stay tied to the interest of the state, not special interest and lobbyists to be bought off.
I never once said we should get rid of the filibuster, I just said we should return to the days of the talking filibuster....you know, back when Senators had to actually work if they wanted to filibuster, not just do it from their office while playing Angry Birds on their cell phones.
“I’m not personally, at this stage, ready to get rid of the 60-vote threshold,” Reid (D-Nev.) told me this morning, referring to the number of votes needed to halt a filibuster. “With the history of the Senate, we have to understand the Senate isn’t and shouldn’t be like the House.”
In other words, he doesn't have the Democratic support he needs to overturn the rules. Why? Because squeemish Democrats know that they are a very slim majority that could swing back to Republicans in 2014. If they change the rules know, they will have effectively shot themselves in the foot.
You can never expect Congress to police itself. It is diametrially opposed to the purpose of being elected in the first place.
I don't know why liberals are so upset? Reid could have change the rule, but the GOP still controls the House and essentially has a filibuster there to stop any of Obama's or Democratic initiatives.
Democrats should hold off on changing the filibuster rule until after we get the House back, which I think will be during the 2016 cycle.
Not sure of the spelling but.......... yeeeha!!!!!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
