Harry Reid moves to limit GOP filibusters

Now we have Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid trying to somehow change the filibuster rules.

He wants to limit the U.S. Senate minority party (currently Republican) power to stop legislation that sometimes goes too far and many times goes against the principals that voters intended to uphold.

Filibusters many times have avoided hidden corruption in legislation.

It sounds like Reid is against all people who voted for Republicans regardless of whether or not ideas and proposed legislation would have positive impacts on the majority of Americans.

I guess his type prefer a single party system by majority default ?

What would that produce ?

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Wednesday that he will try to push through a change to Senate rules that would limit the GOP’s ability to filibuster bills.

Speaking in the wake of Tuesday’s election, which boosted Senate Democrats’ numbers slightly, Mr. Reid said he won’t end filibusters altogether but that the rules need to change so that the minority party cannot use the legislative blocking tool as often.

“I think that the rules have been abused and that we’re going to work to change them,” he told reporters. “Were not going to do away with the filibuster but we’re going to make the Senate a more meaningful place.”

Reid moves to limit GOP filibusters

Green groups said Wednesday that they plan to make Senate rules reform to limit filibusters one of their top priorities heading into the next Congress.

The organizations said they succeeded in their campaign strategy of electing Senate allies as a buffer against legislation from the GOP-dominated House.

But the groups said current Senate rules requiring 60 votes to move beyond a filibuster are untenable and will stunt progress on clean energy and environmental bills.

Senate filibuster reform atop green group priorities

If controversial legislation is so great, why does the opposing party always seem to be against it ?

The U.S. House is majority Republican by voter mandate.

In fact, the House I think gained a few Republican seats this election !!

What does that tell us ?

Very short sighted. What will the dems do when they are on that side of the fence? Not like they never filibustered. Reid should actually do his job and submit a budget proposal. Seems to me that is the reason for the whole budget problem, a lack of one.

Originally posted by hangedman13
Very short sighted. What will the dems do when they are on that side of the fence? Not like they never filibustered.

Reid should actually do his job and submit a budget proposal. Seems to me that is the reason for the whole budget problem, a lack of one.

It's a surreal thing that Obama has just won his second term and never had a budget passed.

reply to post by badgerprints


We don't need a budget, we got free phones

reply to post by xuenchen


A super majority to get anything passed, for one, only leads to political stagnation. That needs to be done away with. I understand and can appreciate the use of a filibuster but it has become a tool of obstruction which again leads to political stagnation.

And the outcome of the House elections last night are only a reflection of the gerrymandered districts that are politically divided anyway. So what does that tell us? Absolutely nothing but more political pandering guised under the mask of democracy.

If the Republicans win back the Senate, won't you be happy if the rules were changed?

I'm just saying that this might be good for the Democrats right now, it has long-lasting impacts that will be beneficial to the GOP down the road.

Come on now, don't be so short-sided!

reply to post by badgerprints


Yea ain't it? Look at it this way Obama inherited a crappy economy left over from the last election! I still think Obama has a few surprise in store from him though. This whole line of crud from Reid strikes me as political posturing. Remember one of the biggest lies in the world! "I'm from your government and I'm here to help you"

Yes, can't figure out why Reid wants to address filibuster...

its not like one side of the aisle completely destroyed its intent


My solution though is to simply require people to literally sit in and do a proper filibuster verses just motions for it..aka, if your going to say your going to hold your breath until you turn blue, you have to actually do it.

That right there will push filibustering down to only the important thing verses just a tool to cripple any and everything the majority wants to do.

You shouldn't need a super majority to pass even the most basic stuff.

They are getting ready to say No to the Naysayers.

'thas no good

Im sorry my state had to bring this slime to the world.

Originally posted by MystikMushroom
If the Republicans win back the Senate, won't you be happy if the rules were changed?

I'm just saying that this might be good for the Democrats right now, it has long-lasting impacts that will be beneficial to the GOP down the road.

Come on now, don't be so short-sided!

How 'bout the Senate passes legislation that is positive for the majority of Americans ?

The filibusters might not enter into the picture in that scene.

A "One-Sided" Senate usually produces "One-Sided" legislation and fuels the corruption engines.

Too much damage that's hard to undo.

Both sides need to propose positive bills.

Originally posted by MystikMushroom
If the Republicans win back the Senate, won't you be happy if the rules were changed?

I'm just saying that this might be good for the Democrats right now, it has long-lasting impacts that will be beneficial to the GOP down the road.

Come on now, don't be so short-sided!

It needs to be addressed..not destroyed..but just hard. it needs to be physically demanding for a person to choose filibuster..this way when it truely is important, a politician will do so, and will suffer, stand, read phone books, etc...and wait for the other side to flinch.

The motion filibuster "threat" is the corrupt tool that can have a minority own the system..and thats not good no matter who is in charge. Stand for what you believe in..but make sure to require standing to begin with (literally in this case).

reply to post by badgerprints


I had never thought about it like that but that is an excellent point. I live in california where we have had budget issues for a long time, but you really put that into perspective. Thanks i guess.

Originally posted by xuenchen

Originally posted by MystikMushroom
If the Republicans win back the Senate, won't you be happy if the rules were changed?

I'm just saying that this might be good for the Democrats right now, it has long-lasting impacts that will be beneficial to the GOP down the road.

Come on now, don't be so short-sided!

How 'bout the Senate passes legislation that is positive for the majority of Americans ?

The filibusters might not enter into the picture in that scene.

A "One-Sided" Senate usually produces "One-Sided" legislation and fuels the corruption engines.

Too much damage that's hard to undo.

Both sides need to propose positive bills.

I think we both live on the same planet.
You know as well as I that the filibuster abuse of the 110th didn't just try to stop bad legislation..they wanted especially to stop good legislation in order to make Obama look bad for re-election.
Keep in mind the mindset:


No...it must be fixed. Take off your red hat for a moment and just acknowledge reality for a half second.

reply to post by SaturnFX


How much of that do you think stopped one sided "super advantage" corruption ?

Or stopped super radical "party line" legislation hidden in bills that had the appearance of "good for all" ?

Perhaps we need to look closer.

reply to post by SaturnFX


Yes.

It needs to be fixed.

Let's figure it out.

Edit...
How much of the 110th that got shot down was good for the majority of Americans ?

On the other side of the coin, I doubt the founding fathers created a lawmaking body just to
have it neutered by obstructionism each day everyday. The Constitution did not mandate
60 votes to get anything done.

The GOP is gonna have to grow a pair and finally start cooperating, they lost exactly because
of their piss poor, baby attitude.

elections should have consequences. currently, we have a tyranny of the minority ruling the senate. so, what is the point of even having a "majority" when all one has to do to defeat some thing is just vote in lock step with your party? not saying you should eliminate it. then you would have a real tyranny on your hands. i would say remove this "super" majority they currently have. maybe make it 53 or 55 votes. that way. a majority and those in the minority can still represent their people. still means something

the people vote them into office for a reason! they want these people to implement their agenda. it is the battle of ideas and beliefs that is in play. if your side loses, then maybe you should reevaluate why you lost. just as democrats had to reevaluate during the bush years, the republicans must look at them selves.

Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Yes.

It needs to be fixed.

Let's figure it out.

Edit...
How much of the 110th that got shot down was good for the majority of Americans ?

edit on Nov-07-2012 by xuenchen because: (no reason given)

How much was shot down to benefit the top 1-2% of America's economic elite?

We all know who the GOP bats for, they say with their own mouths, "job creators" and
such.

For example

Who does it benefit to allow insurance companies to throw ill people of their policies?

Certainly doesn't benefit ANYONE with health insurance who might get sick one day.

Originally posted by blackthorne
elections should have consequences. currently, we have a tyranny of the minority ruling the senate. so, what is the point of even having a "majority" when all one has to do to defeat some thing is just vote in lock step with your party? not saying you should eliminate it. then you would have a real tyranny on your hands. i would say remove this "super" majority they currently have. maybe make it 53 or 55 votes. that way. a majority and those in the minority can still represent their people. still means something

the people vote them into office for a reason! they want these people to implement their agenda. it is the battle of ideas and beliefs that is in play. if your side loses, then maybe you should reevaluate why you lost. just as democrats had to reevaluate during the bush years, the republicans must look at them selves.

Nicely put

Putting the sane back in sanity

It is good when you think you are going to win, but really stinks when you are on the other side of the coin. Harry Reid does not think about what the future may hold, what if the GOP gets a majority, would they then cry on how unfair this rule is? What is good for the goose is good for the gander.