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.
No No No... The FILLIBUSTER is NOT a LAW. It is a simple Senate rule (and one in my view that should have been done away with long ago) that can be bypassed or even got rid of by a simple 51 vote majority. The US Constitution requires only a majority of 50 plus 1 vote for anything to pass the United States Senate EXCEPT an override of a Presidential veto.
If you might recall, when the Republicans ran the Senate and the Democrats were gumming up the works with the fillibuster, Bill First told the Democrats that, if they kept it up, he would get rid of the rule all together (see "nuclear option"). Only because the Democrats backed down and approved Bush's judicial appointments. did the fillibuster live to see today.
The FACT is that the MAJORITY does rule the Senate just as it does the House. It is just that the Democrats don't have either the desire or the guts to rule. It is easier to try to FOOL the American people by blaming the other party.
Again your facts are just plain wrong. Yes, it's a Senate rule that has existed since the beginning - but the rules are in place for session and can not be changed mid session. Also, you need 67 voted to change the rules (or yes, use the nuclear option - which is called that for a reason: it will most likely end any hope of bipartisanship in this generation).
No more In 1998, Democrat Evan Bayh was elected to the U.S. Senate seat formerly held by his father. Bayh defeated Paul Helmke with 64% of the vote, the largest victory margin ever by Democrat in a U.S. Senate race in Indiana. In 2004, he was re-elected, soundly defeating Republican challenger Marvin Scott. (Alex Brandon / AP file photo) Two-term Democrat Senator's decision will have seismic impact on Indiana politics. - 10:36 AM
Bayh is a big one to lose, no doubt and it does beg one to wonder just how sound the reasons given actually are. Kind of like, "I want to spend more time with my family" exit we are all too familiar with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KILLA-P
DemocRATS are falling like flies because they are being exposed for being closet Republicans. They protect the same transnationals and feed the bankers and military industrial complex just like the republicans. Good riddance to Bayh next to go Baucus and Landreau. Because of democratic corruption in 2012 this country is gonna be handed to some Neocon nutjob who is gonna ruin this country. But Im good I got my 20 acres, canned goods, 2.5lbs of gold, 35 guns and enough ammo to defend my slice of pie from any who may try me.
Palin-Beck 2012 baby bring on the facism and feudalism. Im ready are you?
Sounds like the place to put your vote if you wish to promote American isolationism. We can all live in bunkers like Lord of the Flies... yay!
None. But they needed two Independents. Which they finally got in the health care reform bill (after gutting large parts of it to get those 2 votes) that passed the Senate.
The real question here is why Republicans are now voting against the same things the voted for in the past? Even their own ideas like a mandate to cover everyone (a Republican idea).
The 2 independents lean to which party?
What are republicans voting against that they once supported besides spending? Why do you think republicans lost so many seats? How do you think the American people are feeling about the increased amount of GoV spending? Which party do you think is doing what the people want when it comes to spending?
Didnt Obama run on how terrible it was how republicans increased the national debt now all of a sudden its acceptable to increase it more then what it was when you were complaining about it.
One of the parties has to stop and wake up and stop this spending we cant keep this up
The DEMOCRATS do not NEED a SINGLE Republican vote to do anything! Not one! The can pass anything they want. They have commanding majorities in Congress, the Senate and a President in the White House. You cannot blame the Republicans for this one.
This is statement is simply not true. Currently in the Senate, based on Senate rules, you need 60 to pass. To change the Senate rules you need 66 (or is 67). The minority party, if they stick together, can block everything, even legislation and appointments they approve of.
This is statement is simply not true. Currently in the Senate, based on Senate rules, you need 60 to pass. To change the Senate rules you need 66 (or is 67). The minority party, if they stick together, can block everything, even legislation and appointments they approve of.
How many democrats were there? Including the 2 independents that are basically democrats
So that statement is true democrats did not need a single republican vote to pass any bill they wanted. They had super majority including a democrat president. They didnt need 1 republican vote for anything they wanted to pass
The 2 independents lean to which party?
What are republicans voting against that they once supported besides spending? Why do you think republicans lost so many seats? How do you think the American people are feeling about the increased amount of GoV spending? Which party do you think is doing what the people want when it comes to spending?
Didnt Obama run on how terrible it was how republicans increased the national debt now all of a sudden its acceptable to increase it more then what it was when you were complaining about it.
One of the parties has to stop and wake up and stop this spending we cant keep this up
Why would the Republicans all of a sudden start being "fiscally responsible?" For the record, I believe the stimulus was too small, and that spending should be increased even more, to more mimic deficits we ran during WWII.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jadex
What are republicans voting against that they once supported besides spending?
They've railed against the Federal mandate to require people to buy health insurance, which was a Republican proposal back in the 90's. For Republicans, the idea of requiring every American to have health insurance is one of the most abhorrent provisions of the Democrats' health overhaul bills.
"Congress has never crossed the line between regulating what people choose to do and ordering them to do it," said Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT). "The difference between regulating and requiring is liberty."
But Hatch's opposition is ironic, or some would say, politically motivated. The last time Congress debated a health overhaul, when Bill Clinton was president, Hatch and several other senators who now oppose the so-called individual mandate actually supported a bill that would have required it. Republicans Spurn Once-Favored Health Mandate : NPR
AND, they just voted against their own commission, AFTER Obama endorsed it. But then, on Jan. 26, 2010, when the Conrad-Gregg bill, originally introduced as S. 2853, came for a vote in the Senate, it fell seven votes shy of the Senate's 60-vote threshold for passage, garnering 53 yeas and 46 nays, with one senator not voting.
The measure would have passed with 60 votes if only seven additional Republicans who had co-sponsored S. 2853 had voted for it. Instead, those seven -- Robert Bennett of Utah, Sam Brownback of Kansas, Mike Crapo of Idaho, John Ensign of Nevada, Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, James Inhofe of Oklahoma and John McCain of Arizona -- withdrew their co-sponsorship in the days before the vote and then voted against it on the floor. PolitiFact | McConnell reverses position on Conrad-Gregg budget commission
Bayh, 54, said in a statement announcing his decision that his retirement “was not motivated by political concern.”
“Even in the current challenging environment, I am confident in my prospects for reelection,” he said.
Instead, Bayh continued, he was weary of the partisan sniping that has become so common in the capital, citing recent failures in the Senate to pass a deficit commission and jobs legislation.
“All of this and much more has led me to believe that there are better ways to serve my fellow citizens, my beloved state and our nation than continued service in Congress,” he said.
How many democrats were there? Including the 2 independents that are basically democrats
So that statement is true democrats did not need a single republican vote to pass any bill they wanted. They had super majority including a democrat president. They didnt need 1 republican vote for anything they wanted to pass
What are the 60 Democratic votes to finish the health care legislation? Or even approve low level executive branch appointments.
They didn't have a Super majority until Al Franken was seated, and that didn't happen until June 2009.
I didn't say they had it for an entire year, I said they lost it because they couldn't get anything done for an entire year.
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.
