What do you all think of fixing/reforming the filibuster? It is necessary or not? Please share your thoughts. BTW, I'm with Harry Reid.
I say we go back to the parliamentary practices of 1812 written by Thomas Jefferson. My personal favorite is this one... I think its more important that our congress critters have heard the whole bill, or in this case have heard the whole bill before they vote on it. No point on bringing up filibusters if our representatives don't even know what the whole bill is.
While I agree we have to reform the current system, modern politics as become such a team sport, we need to proceed with caution. I'm certain the framers of the constitution never envisioned needing a super majority to pass legislation. After all, the check and balance built in assumes the President will keep Congress in check. But I am equally certain that they never envisioned a two party system where every issue is a partisan fight, each side voting the party line. Without something like the Filibuster, all you will be left with is a pair of rubber stamps that just move bills along with little or no regard to the minority. That's fine as long as you have split houses keeping each other honest. But as soon as you get a single party controlling both houses and the White House, the minority becomes powerless and there is nothing keeping you from radical ideologic driven reforms that consolidates power into an effective dictatorship. The trouble is with this bunch of hyper partisan clowns, I'm not sure they can come up with a reasonable alternative. Reasoned judgement seems in very short supply and it appears to have descended into continuous jousting for political advantage.
For the first time (like, ever), I agree with Harry Reid. If you're going to filibuster, you better (*)(*)(*)(*)ing filibuster. Filibusters used to take serious balls. I also agree with Crafty (and Jefferson).
I think the timing on this is pretty convenient. They want to not have a 2/3 vote, but have the country eek by with 51%. How about instead of changing the rules they actually are forced to talk and work with each other? In DC I had a lot of friends who were pages or aides and they would tell me how these guys didn't read the bills, how they barely spoke to each other, how the only time they hung out was to socialize. This is exactly when Virginia Senator (D) Webb got out. He realized there was nothing that could be done in Washington because of how it was run. What would help instead of filibuster changes is an end to the two party stranglehold and/or term limits. They people would "make their mark" while they could.
I voted for Sen. Webb. One of the few honest Democrats left, opposed Obamacare and everything. Shame to see him go, but I understand why.
Its not much of a reform they are going to the OLD RULES you want to filibuster you stand up, keep talking and don't leave and can pass the speeking to another member who is under the same rules until you can't anymore or win. And the Republicans if they took the Senate would do the same thing so they can go after Obamacare to some degree.
I think the debate on anything, should be intense (but civil) and sufficient (but reasonably limited). All of this stupid freaking out that leads to extremes and gridlock... has to end. If the nation's policies are sometimes Center-Right, that's okay; and if it is Center-Left, that is okay too. But allowing radicals and extremists to screw things up... needs to be kept to a bare minimum. We don't need a fracking REVOLUTION every darned year.
The problem is you have to give the radical extremists a voice in government. Google "Jon Stewart interview with King Abdullah II of Jordan". King Abdullah explains how they deal with the Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan. They are a minority in government and are only supported by a minority of the people because they were allowed to speak their extremism in the open so the people could see how they truly were, instead of being in places like Egypt and electing them to lead the country, only to find out how extremist they are after it's too late. It's very enlightening.
I stated the following: Giving voice to ALL is not the problem, in my view. But ensuring the proper levels and quality of REAL DEBATE is essential. We don't need something so radical and sweeping, that people's basic rights are stifled or denied. In other words, with me, it is about using government to benefit people, in general... not merely a select few. We don't need MORE laws which say you cannot; we need to lean toward law which suggest YES YOU CAN (as long as you do not infringe directly or seriously upon the rights, safety or happiness of others). To me, the fiscal aspects are mainly about 'math'; we should be allowed to go into debt, IF we know it's a good investment. For example, spending money on OUR nation's citizens to EDUCATE them, is never going to be a waste of money. If we don't make that happen... we're OVER (in due time). I agree with freedom of and opportunity for redress of grievances or expression of ideas. However, I do not expect the collective will of the people to be disregarded, because a few radicals (or knuckle-heads) who think things should change OVERNIGHT have poised themselves to seize control of government. That's nothing but a fight. I watch Stewart a lot, but I don't remember that interview. Sounds interesting.
It is EXACTLY what needs to happen. If nothing else, they will ALL expose themselves a bit more... allowing the American people to scrutinize them a bit more.
Make the filibuster REAL once again. Deliberation of issues... should not be 'easy' for Congress to shut down.
Speaking of, when is Harry going to propose reform that would make it illegal for him to not bring bills to the floor for debate and vote?
I can't read any of the politicians minds; and the PUBLIC can't really hear/know them... unless they are willing to debate out in the open.
Yeah, but Harry's record seems to suggest that reform will never happen as long as he is Majority Leader.
Well, many reforms needed are (and will be) incremental. America can accomplish some awesome things... but it is clear that our politics don't always move in the proper way(s) at the right time(s). Even so, things WILL 'change'.
When the right is the majority, they don't think it's an issue. When the left is the majority, they don't think it's an issue. Quite frankly, they've both whined about this for decades now. Neither is credible on the subject.
