Time To Get Rid Of The Filibuster Now !!!

[WillyT]

Because you know damned well that if the rePukes somehow manage to get back in control of the Senate by 2012...

(And that's looking more and more possible with each passing day.)

They sure will!

:shrug:

[no limit]

1. That makes no sense? Why would you want to remove it if you think the republicans will gain control?

[WillyT]

2. Because We Won't Get ANYTHING Of Value Done, Having To Get 60 Votes For Every Issue

No REAL Healthcare Reform

No REAL Financial Reform

No REAL Environmental/Energy Reform

I know it's a roll of the dice, but if we don't show the country our willingness to fight, AND WIN for them, then we're toast anyway.

:shrug:

[no limit]

6. Look at what the republicans did with 50 some votes.

What do you think they'll do without a fillibuster? Wanna privatize social security? Check. Eliminate unemployment benefits? Check. Piss on all poor people of this country? Check.

[BonnieJW]

11. It won't happen.

It takes 67 votes to change the rules and which 7 repubs are going to vote to repeal it? For that matter, which dems will vote to repeal?

[MadHound]

3. Like we really go anything done with sixty votes anyway.

Look, at some point, probably in the relatively near future, the Dems are going to be in the minority again. Despite their lack of a spine, I would still like to seem them, as the minority party, have all the tools that they can in order to fight back. Take away these tools and the 'Pugs will just roll in anything that they please.

Sorry, but we need to keep the filibuster. What the Dems need is to grow a spine and actually start fighting.

[WillyT]

4. What Makes You Think The Filibuster Will Remain Under A Republican Majority ???

They came damned close to eliminating it last time they were in power.

Remember the "nuclear option"?

I do.

In U.S. politics, the "nuclear option" is an attempt by a majority of the United States Senate to end a filibuster by invoking a point of order to essentially declare the filibuster unconstitutional which can be decided by a simple majority, rather than seeking formal cloture with a supermajority of 60 senators. Although it is not provided for in the formal rules of the Senate, the procedure is the subject of a 1957 parliamentary opinion and has been used on several occasions since. The term was coined by Senator Trent Lott (Republican of Mississippi) in 2005.<1>

The maneuver was brought to prominence in 2005 when then-Majority Leader Bill Frist (Republican of Tennessee) threatened its use to end Democratic-led filibusters of judicial nominees submitted by President George W. Bush. In response to this threat, Democrats threatened to shut down the Senate and prevent consideration of all routine and legislative Senate business. The ultimate confrontation was prevented by the Gang of 14, a group of seven Democratic and seven Republican Senators, all of whom agreed to oppose the nuclear option and oppose filibusters of judicial nominees, except in extraordinary circumstances.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

:shrug:

[no limit]

7. Why do you think it didn't succeed?

There seems to be a hint in the wikipedia quote you posted.

[vicdoc]

5. Right....

They did not get rid of it when the Republicans had control of the senate, and the Democrats used the filibuster to their advantage. Are you going to put it back only when the Democrats are in the minority?
Look what happens when you change the rules to suit a particular party:
Remember when they changed the way Senate seat vacancies are filled in Massachusetts in 2008? Yeah, they did not want Romney appointing a Republican if Kerry got elected so the Democratically controlled legislature changed the rules so they have to hold a special election instead ("Let the People decide!") figuring the liberal state would always vote Democratic. That's what got Mr. Brown elected last week. So go ahead have them change the rules (which takes 67 votes in the Senate). If they had not changed the rules Kirk would have been in place till the next election in 2012! If you change the rules when the Republicans take control in the future they will have more power! There is always has a downside which your short sighted change doesn't take into account.

[yurbud]

8. the filibuster was the excuse not reason for Democrats inaction

[WillyT]

9. Well Hell Then... What's The Use ???

BTW - I think you are probably correct.

:banghead:

[kenny blankenship]

10. I think you're right. Filibuster is going away SOON, either by our hand or the Repugs'

and I know which one I'd rather have in charge in a filibuster-free Senate FIRST.

I remember Clinton's first term - everything filibustered by Dole's kids. Since then soaring use of the filibuster. America's problems keep PILING UP because nothing can get through the Senate that corporate oligarchy doesn't approve of.
Something is going to give soon. That's the fault line. And when it gives way, change of some kind is going to come down HARD.

(But you know Democrats- self castrating Melvins almost every one. If Repugs can't cock block our agenda, we'll block it for them...)