Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-06-2013, 03:54 PM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,582 posts, read 9,765,067 times
Reputation: 4172

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn View Post
Most people who oppose the "noisy filibuster" have no idea how it's actually done, as shown by the poster above.

The good news - Rand Paul is carrying out a genuine "noisy filibuster" right now. I guess he doesn't like one of Obama's recent appointees, or something. But he is putting his money where his mouth is, standing up at the lectern himself, and talking, talking, talking. And he says he'll keep doing it until Obama addresses the issue, whatever it is. I don't know when I last saw a genuine "noisy filibuster" like this. Kudoes, Rand!

I wish him luck. He's got to sleep some time, go to the bathroom etc. It used to be that several like-minded Senators would talk in shifts, yielding time to each other so one was always talking while the others sat back, slept, ate, etc., waiting for their turn. Is Paul working with any others, to keep this going like this?

It'll be interesting to see how the media treats this. As I said in the OP, the idea is to bring ALL Senate business to a halt, in a highly public way, so that the media can broadcast the (astounding) fact, do a lot of exposes on why it's being done, talk a lot about both sides of the argument.

With the media we have today, of course, that's highly problematic. The media solidly opposes anything brought up by Rand Paul or his dad. Publicizing what he's doing, is exactly what they DON'T want to do.

How long will the media be able to ignore it? Longer than Paul (and his partners if any) can keep talking?
Rand Paul is still going!

Go, boy, go!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-06-2013, 04:32 PM
 
Location: Where they serve real ale.
7,242 posts, read 7,892,050 times
Reputation: 3497
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
The problem is that until the Dems were elected in 2006, there was a gentleman's agreement to use the filibuster sparingly. Now, the Reps use it to stop everything. That's abuse.
Indeed. A total of 97% of the bills and motions were filibustered in 2012 including the Republicans filibustering their own unamended bills after Obama said he supported them. It's just abusive and designed to prevent the people's business from getting done. Sadly, Reid proved yet again that he was just a coward because he could have changed the rules last month during the first day of the new session however despite claiming he would bring back the noisy filibuster he lied and flip flopped as soon as the election was over. I'm one democratic voter who would love to see Reid go away.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2013, 03:32 AM
 
Location: The Brat Stop
8,347 posts, read 7,224,659 times
Reputation: 2279
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn View Post
Hardly a surprise, since Democrat majorities try to pass far more unacceptable and unconstitutional legislation and appointments than Republicans.
What?
Did you know a GOP leader filibustered his OWN BILL?

//www.city-data.com/forum/polit...-own-bill.html

Senate Hits New Low as Mitch McConnell Filibusters Himself

Quote:
McConnell, of course, had no intention of taking a vote, which is why he called for it in the first place. This led to the stunning sight of McConnell, one of the most powerful Republicans in Washington (nominally, anyway), filibustering his own bill and, in turn, himself.
Your GOP is pretty much politically INSANE.


Mitch McConnell Reaffirms His Top Priority To Limit Barack Obama To One Term - YouTube
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2013, 08:50 AM
 
Location: North America
19,784 posts, read 15,079,987 times
Reputation: 8527
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn View Post
Most people know about the origins of the Filibuster. A quirk in U.S. Senate rules, says that people can go on talking endlessly, about anything they like, during the "debate" period for a bill, and no one can stop them. This allows a small number of people, trading off their speech right, to bring the entire Senate to a halt, and prevent any action on whatever bill the talker(s) oppose. Years ago, it required a 2/3 supermajority vote in the Senate, to invoke "cloture" and force the talking to stop so they could get on to a vote.

This would have the effect of causing a huge furor in government, which quickly spread to the press and the attention of the voters (people who usually didn't pay much attention to Senate business). The people filibustering a bill, did it with exactly this in mind: To bring the bill (and the controversy around it) to the atttention of the people. They believed that the people would side with them, if they knew what was going on, and would call their Senators and Congressmen to quit supporting the bill being filibustered. Sometimes the filibusterers were right about the people supporting them, and sometimes they were wrong. But whichever, that was their intention.

Then in 1975, the Senate changed the rules. Now it only took a 60% majority (60 out of 100 Senators) to invoke cloture and end the filibuster. And it became a "silent filibuster", where only that particular bill now needed the supermajority... but the rest of Senate business could proceed, instead of ALL Senate business being halted while the filibuster went on.

So, a filibuster became "not such a big deal"... filibusters could go on all the time, and weren't particularly disruptive. Senators (particularly those in the majority) praised the change, pointing out that now the Senate could do its legislating more smoothly and efficiently.

BUT... this violates one of the most basic principles of American government, as designed by the Framers. They deliberately designed the U.S. Government to NOT be "smooth and efficient".

The Framers were basically conservative men. They believed that society would work the best, and provide the greatest safety and freedom for its people, if governmental interference were minimized. To that end, they designed a Federal government where four very different groups of people, all had to agree on a law, before it went into force. The Framers decided that if any one of those four groups objected, that should be enough reason to dump the bill and keep the people free of its restrictions and encumberances.

The four groups were, of course, (1) Citizen-legislators who had real jobs in the real world, who took two years off to join the legislature and then went back to their real jobs afterward (House of Representatives); (2) Professional politicians whose job it was to make sure the Fed govt did not take powers that should have been left to the states, and so were appointed by their state governments to a six-year term (Senate) to protect the State's authority; (3) An Executive officer whose job was to carry out the laws passed by the first two groups but to veto any law he considered unsuitable (President); and (4) a group of judges who would examine actual cases where someone complained his rights were violated by the exercise of a law passed by the first three groups (Supreme Court).

Only if all four of those very different groups ALL agreed that a law was good, would it be allowed to stay in force. If any one of them disagreed, the law was either never enacted, or was tossed out shortly afterward. The whole purpose of this clumsy, cantankerous arrangement, was to PREVENT as many laws as possible, from being imposed on the American people; and to leave them free to do as much as possible WITHOUT government restriction or interference. Only a relatively few laws were to be enacted: things that most people in ALL groups agreed we needed, and agreed were permitted by the Constitution.

People who praise the "silent filibuster" for its tendency to make Senate legislation "smoother and easier", have forgotten that it's not supposed to be smooth OR easy. The purpose of the U.S. Government, is to ensure FREEDOM, not to ensure government restriction. And that's all any law can do: restrict and/or punish people.
The reason it's always been possible for one guy (or one small group) to block ALL legislation in the Senate, is so that one guy can **** off a lot of people (including the general public who otherwise weren't paying much attention) and get them to examine what's going on. What is this one guy so concerned about, that he sees fit to bring the entire Senate to a halt and prevent ANY legislation?

The purpose of a filibuster, is to ignite furious debate among a much wider segment of the population, than the Senate usually gets. And the guy doing the filibustering, does it because he believes that when lots of the public get involved, his side is more likely to win. Those large numbers of people, will call or write their Senators and tell them to kill the bill; since he believes the majority of the American people would actually OPPOSE the bill if they knew the details.

The introduction of the "silent filibuster" in 1975, took away this valuable (if disruptive) safety valve, and ensured that most American people (who seldom pay attention to what's going on in the Senate) would remain ignorant of the bad things the one person finds in the bill. The 1975 change still allows a "noisy filibuster" IF the Senate Majority Leader insists on that kind. But the majority is the LAST group that wants massive public attention to a bill they can pass with a quiet vote.

I last talked about bringing back the "noisy filibuster", when Republicans had the majority in the Senate and Democrats were filibustering things, all without getting much of the public involved. Now the shoe is on the other foot, with Democrats in the majority and Republicans filibustering things. I didn't like it then, and I don't like it now. In both cases, I wish the filibusters would cause MAJOR disruptions, and that the issues involved would get massive attention from the voting public, with massive calls to their Senators and Representatives following, to settle the matter quickly one way or another.

Bring back the "noisy filibuster" - a filibuster which must halt ALL activity in the Senate, hit all the headlines, and cause massive "What the h*ll??" reactions from as many voters as possible. And keep the "noisy filibuster" in place, no matter which party is in the majority.

Looks like Rand Paul did just that. Though I'm no fan, I admire him for it. If you're going to block something, at least work for it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2013, 05:53 PM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,582 posts, read 9,765,067 times
Reputation: 4172
Now Ted Cruz seems to be filibustering a bill (cue the Democrats to scream that he's filibustering passed by the House, without examing WHY he's doing it, or addressig the topic of this thread at all).

But I keep hearing that he (and his friends) can't keep talking forever, as filibustering Senators used to. There's a 30-hour clock or something, that provides automatic cloture without a vote. When did that get into Senate rules?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:35 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top