Filibuster Vs. tyranny of the mob.


#1

Filibuster Vs. tyranny of the mob.

The purpose of retaining U.S. Senators’ right to filibuster is to defend the rights of minority parties against mob tyranny.

I am not opposed to this purpose but similar to most worthy concepts, it should not stand alone as an unlimited absolute. The right to halt the government from acting should not be extended for eternity. It should not bed evoked by senators that are ashamed to publicly declare it is being enacted in their own names. It should require those senators to publicly hold the “floor” and physically speak and continuously make their case. An anonymous senator should not be able to block the passage of a law or anyone’s appointment.

It now requires 2/3 vote of the senate to halt a filibuster. It has been suggested that after 7 days, that that 67% qualification should be reduced each week by 2%.

The Democratic Party refrained from debating the federal budget and taxes on to the floors of both houses prior to the 2010 elections. Democrats’ behavior was cowardly and politically foolish. I changed my registration from Democrat to the Green Party but I really do not share their priorities.

For a half century I voted for Democrats in every general election and failed to vote in very few primary elections. Voting for the Green Party’s candidate was the only opportunity to express my complete opposition to Republicans and dissatisfaction with the Democratic Party.

The U.S. Senate cannot change their rules until January, 2015; Harry Reid blew it. If I’m then still alive in 2015, I will then consider re-registering and voting for Democrats.

Respectfully, Supposn


#2

Or elect more of your party to the Senate. /shrug

I love gridlock. Ensuring that may eventually convince me to vote Democrat and Republican again.


#3

The purpose of retaining U.S. Senators’ right to filibuster is to defend the rights of minority parties against mob tyranny.

elected representatives already prevent the “tyranny of the mob”, so calling a majority of representatives the “mob” is just silly


#4

Wait, something which prevents the rightful majority (whom were elected) from taking action unless the minority also agrees? So much for majority rule. Guess we need to change it to SUPER majority rule.


#5

So you would have been completely OK with the Democrats not having filibuster power over Bush? Its funny how the same Dems pushing to undo the filibuster were the same ones screaming bloody murder when that was suggested under Bush.


#6

Two wolfs and a sheep try and decide what’s for dinner…


#7

Actually most senators support filibusters, as they want to have them when the other group is incharge, like a failsafe. I believe the idea of filibuster all together is not healthy for a democratic nation, same thing applies with pro forma’s.


#8

We are a Representative Republic, or at least supposed to be.


#9

Ummm…if you’re gonna argue against it and make proposals…you might wanna look at the details and get them right. It is a 3/5 (60 vote) supermajority that can bring cloture to a fillibuster.
It is constitutional…and it works to protect minority party interests…fillibusters have been around since nearly the founding and they happen to work in OUR favor at the moment. Let’s discuss this again when WE have the majority. :smiley:


#10

A healthy democracy requires rule by the majority and also consideration of the minority party. The fillibuster has been essential at pushing compromise that benefits all, not just the 51% and at safeguarding against one-sided legislation. The times in history that the people gave their complete support to the majority party proves the inherit limitations of filibusters. To summarily do away with this would place the country on a swinging axe of policy between far left and far right every decade or so and lead to a permanent partisan divide possibly leading to hositility I would think you, a liberal, would appreciate remembering the minority party.


#11

In a time of economic recession, having a solution which helps to up start the economy with the potential risk of having policies rewritten every few elections is in my opinion worse than facing political stagnation, at the price of the working poor who are forced to suffer while one side filibusters any potential solution. In some cases, you can’t justify a filibuster as support for the minority party, although he is not part of the senate, I believe Boehner portrays the problem quite well in this quote, being that he doesn’t intend to compromise, rather, prevent Obama from passing legislation.

“”[G]iven what we heard yesterday about the president’s vision for his second term, it’s pretty clear to me and should be clear to all of you that he knows he can’t do any of that as long as the House is controlled by Republicans. So we’re expecting over the next 22 months to be the focus of this administration as they attempt to annihilate the Republican Party. And let me tell you, I do believe that is their goal – to just shove us in the dustbin of history."" John Boehner.


#12

To begin, it is in YOUR OPINION that Obama’s policies will help this economy. And to be honest I am not putting that much faith in his ideas. To begin it is counter intuitive to think that by increasing the cost of doing business, increasing the taxes on business, increasing the regulations on business, increasing the cost of investing in business will lead to economic prosperity. This country is not, and never will be, a tax hike away from prosperity. Secondly, the focus of the Obama Administration has been focusing on the EFFECTS of the recession and not doing anything about the DISEASE. His idea is to take money from the more wealthy so that he can afford the increased output in welfare checks. You see this as a benevolent action, I see it as akin to dependency slavery similar to the Panem et Circenses of the Roman Empire. When you increase taxes, you have more money for welfare spending. But then people lose their jobs as a result, creating more people requiring welfare. This creates an endless cycle until, as Margaret Thatcher state, “You run out of other people’s money”.

You say that he is the crusader of the poor, I say he’s the oppressor. He has destroyed the business drive of this country. He has forced companies to ship overseas to the irony of tax codes that is China. You then focus on the big bad businessman instead of WHY the businessman left. If he could make money here, he wouldn’t go abroad. By punishing the evil rich, you are perpetuating high unemployment and utter misery of the lower classes and the minorities. The NAACP spokesman admitted the other day that blacks have fair more poorly under Obama than his predecessor. By his actions, those of the lower echelon are not able to find employment and must now turn to the government, again ironically the ones who put them there, for sustenance. That almost sounds like dependency slavery to me.

In addition, to mask your role in their misery, you rally up hatred and hysteria and sick the more crazy side of liberals (Occupy Wall Street) on fellow American citizens. You blame the rich for everything, not paying fair shares, and dirty dealing, and they must be punished and leashed. And then you can’t figure out why they take their business elsewhere? The the radicals set fire to people’s offices, attack people in the street, set up sieges where it becomes intimidating and dangerous just to walk to work. Not just the rich either, all those terrible minions of the rich who simply wanted A JOB.

Get off your high horse, Obama and the Liberal Left are not interested in freedom or justice. They want control. Control over people. Control over business. Complete control of the personal and professional lives of all American citizens. Every policy and legislation they carry out leads to another freedom being taking away. There are few, and mostly socially-based, legislations that result in more freedom such as the Women in Combat. But when it comes to the economy, they do not believe the people should have any control or influence. THEY, they who are so much more wise and learned in the knowledge of sound business practice and economics, they will control everything. They do not believe in economic freedom, opportunity, strong economy, private enterprise, low taxes, or small government. That is why the recession never went away. It’s still here, regardless of what people say. And regardless from people say, Obama has done a HORRIBLE job of improving this economy. He has made it WORSE.


#13

There is NO filibuster in the House…a MAJORITY elected them and the MAJORITY rules and you don’t like the decision to obstruct since they disagree with Obama on most everything and nothing they pass can become law since the Senate and Obama obstructs them??? You must be anti-democratic.


#14

Which is why I mentioned Boehner is from the house. Reread what I said. Also, it seems like you would support filibuster reform. A filibuster effectively stops majority rules in the sentate.


#15

And you mistake sarcasm for support I’m afraid.
I support SUPER MAJORITY rule in the Senate as a CONSERVATIVE and republican check on mob rule and a protection for minority party views and an impetus for collaboration and compromise.
As has been said…a PURE democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on what’s for dinner tonite.


#16

false analogy, if it was 2 lambs and a wolf voting on whats for dinner the lambs still get eaten.


#17

OK…two Michelle Obama’s and me deciding where to eat. Better? :smiley:


#18

Im not sure if I want to think about there being two of her, one is one too many


#19

Obama’s policies have stagnated the economy just as Roosevelt’s did. That being said, the economy is not really Obama’s priority, his priority is to “Fundamentally transform the United States Of America”, into some sort of offspring of Marxism.
Why should the Republicans ‘compromise’ with Marxists? Heaven forbid!!


#20

[quote=“Supposn, post:1, topic:38048”]
Filibuster Vs. tyranny of the mob.

The purpose of retaining U.S. Senators’ right to filibuster is to defend the rights of minority parties against mob tyranny.
Respectfully, Supposn
[/quote]I largely agree but remember that cuts both ways. Bush II’s presidency was largely crippled by this device as well. What’s sauce for the goose…"