ImLogicallyRight

When either party is in the minority they fully use the filibuster, to stall or k**l legislation or appointments such as the courts, in the interests of their overall agenda. The filibuster or the need of the Senate to gets 60 v**es has been used by Democrats lately to stall or k**l various bills the Republicans wanted passed.

Of course about the worst of these is back in the Johnson Administration when they filibustered the Civil Rights Bill for close to two months, that they now want to claim they passed for B****s. Just had to throw that in to show how bad the filibuster can be as a tool to stop legislation.

They would like to use the requirement of 60 v**es to stall Judicial appointments, especially Justice Amy Barrett. But their own folly k**led that advantage when Democrat Harry Reid k**led the 60 v**e requirement for Judicial appointments.

This filibuster rule is just that, a rule in the Senate that the Majority Party can k**l virtually at will, but has historically been respected by both parties. That is/was until Harry Reid changed it.

If the Democrats win, and also win the Senate, they would then like to keep the Judicial appointments at 50 instead of 60. They would like to remove the requirement for 60 v**es for other legislation and their is nothing that could stop them besides tradition. And we know how they respect tradition.

Democracy says that 51 can jam anything they want down the throats of 49. But the Constitution and Federalism has basically given some weight to the Minority and protected them, to some extent. This 60 v**e requirement gives the minority some power to protect them selves from 51 jamming things down the throats of the 49. It essentially takes 60 to over rule 40.

I know, some here are for absolute 51-49. And the minority shouldn't have absolute veto control over everything. So, what is a reasonable balance realizing sometimes you are in the majority and sometimes the minority.

So, my question to OPP is, what should be the level of control that the minority should have to protect itself, for bills, and appointments? For example. 51-49 or 55-45 or 60-30 or 67-33 or 70-30? And should this be absolute in the Senate, and set up so that it can't be changed without the minority party's consent?

Logically Right

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

Mitch, and before him Reid, suspended the 60 v**e rule at will. The top job in the Senate is "Senate Majority leader", notice it does not say "Senate leader", so clearly demonstrates the strangle hold the majority party has on legislation. No bill can even be presented for debate on the floor, and sometimes not even in committee, without the majority leaders approval. That level of control should NOT be allowed, regardless of which party holds the majority.

We are a "representative government", which means that EVERY representative must have equal power, in order to conduct the business of the people. Partisan politics are fundamentally un-Constitutional, as it gathers power within a political construct, thus denying that all power derives from the people.....................ALL the people........................not just those in the majority party.

Were there no political parties at all, every representative wishing to advance legislation would have to build a coalition among ALL the other representatives, to build a majority...................thus representing a majority of the PEOPLE as the founders and the Constitution demands.

ImLogicallyRight

Not disputing what you say, but the topic I was trying to get to was about how much power should a minority have as to passing the filibuster rules. Those are the current practices and that is wherein the dispute lies. To much is essentially veto power while to little turns the Senate into a Democracy where a party majority of 51/49 gives them absolute power. Where is the reasonable balance? That is my question.

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

Eliminating the majority leaders power to set the legislative agenda would be a good start, setting a 60 v**e requirement as a permanent rule that cannot be suspended and eliminate the filibuster.

Lt. Rob Polans ret.

What about change it to no filibuster?

woodguru

You need to wake up, dems have not been k*****g the hundreds of bills passed in the house that are k**led by the senate.

The filibuster prior to Obama being elected had only been used in more extreme circumstances, then it saw a surge of being used as an every day thing used to k**l everything. McConnell's senate k**ls everything including hundreds of bills that would easily pass bipartisan threshholds...hundreds of bills have been k**led that would have passed and McConnell admits it. It was the GOP minority during Obama's first two years that used the filibuster as the minority a record number of times.

Nothing was getting through the house until dems took control, they have passed hundreds of bipartisan bills that would also have easily passed in the senate had v**es been taken.

Kickaha Loc: Nebraska

The House has been passing bills without Republican support. These have been k**led in the Senate by Republicans without Democrats. The same has been true in reverse in the past.
How many Republican sponsored bills have been passed by the House with the Democrats in charge? There is too much game playing on both sides.